MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
a physician needs to be advised of the warning that is the safest way in this case to protect the patients it cannot be assume that every back to who is getting a continuing renewal of the drug knows the responsibility because they knew mr bennett was taking this drug more than twelve weeks he was in the danger of the package insert says the danger is they're still pendant and sure the dose dependent so the more webster's third or national dictionary they said against we have the case so the court uses country indications two different ways but if it's relativism neath for the disposition to determine certainly asking spirits to tell the quite properly said the pharmacies off the hook in my case because the factor said he's aware with the thirty phone calls hypothetically to dr roy saying do you know that there's this limitation in the writing i think of course as there is going to be able to come down to is that they knew from the pharmacy records in the computer that mr banneker been taking this drug for years we have we have one incorrect page reference in our faith and i want to point it out to the court because i think it's an important issue whe knew that the patient had been taking here more than twelve weeks and they got a new prescription that will continue the drug for longer but also the special circumstances that at the end of the happen decision when the court says why do we have a duty to warrant the person is not going to have be objective information to know whether a dose is too high for this person or that person whereas i object to be speaking here the black box warning says that's too much that's not too much exactly and if the doctor doesn't know if that warning he needs to at least know that you don't do it now the same with the dosage right the doctor doesn't know the dosage he should be told the difference for the dosage cases as well your honor is the package inserts for those simply so recommended dosage might be a hundred milligrams a day that's not a warning it's not a black box warning it's not appropriate push there's a recommended dosage is that if you are three hundred pounds or one hundred pounds make a huge difference if your metabolism is absolutely right makes a big difference but when you talk about duration of treatment with red one it doesn't make a difference the privates warning says any cases do you exceed twelve pharmacist to know that information it's no surprise that computer data is for the pharmacist not of the past but if you're trying to prevent problems with mission run the program the computer to pick up this problem just like you did every other drug interactions  that did exist in this case that was when you tried to the patient what's your position on that my position on that is it may be evidence of contributory fault but it certainly does nothing to absolve the square from its duty to notify the and it shouldn't be that way frankly and doctors have to push have to rely on frances as a practical matter to frame it to notify them when the doctor's prescription surrounding for creates a serious danger of a contraction and
factual representation the board says nothing about it the board simply quotes the representation and then goes on to criticize the examiners work does not deny that african specification that's best but that's how the application read the complaint in this case contains an allegation that that is that in fact it was discovered on new simultaneously that seems d put something on it that isn't patented but it's really obvious mine is tested against an objective standard basis its patent holder would look at this entire record when the sun case was filed against no broadest and say i have to give up i just have to go and i can't defend this case i can count  situation where you have a mess of interest payment which calls into question the the substance of the underlying case where provocation were something happen tomorrow and hearing for example that called into question the possibility of an actual infringement courts thank you
was therefore like to focus first on two fundamental legal principles that apply to insurance policy finders and with that background apply those principles to the timeline of that down oh i mean how does that that's not the same thing even though the prior years policy was no longer providing coverage when the first securities suit was filed one month later the court also held that genesis promptly rescinded the two thousand and two policy there was no policy to extend that policy was void of an issue as a result of the fraud that occurred in two thousand and one second's counsel noted a binders can be voided for fraud there was fraud in the application process for the binder here on the august one conference call or specifically representatives to genesis underwriter that the distributor transactions were consistent with her and box revenue recognition policy that he would not have recognized the revenue if they had not then that the issue that was confronting the company was simply a flip flopper of revenues that revenues from two thousand were going to be moved to two thousand and one and that there would be no impact on the financials for the current year which at that point was fiscal year two t accounting irregularities and it was not forthcoming in till november two thousand and two hundred bucks argument suggests that they're trying to sort out some sort of cat and mouse game here that if they didn't provide all of the information with genesis in a timely manner  provided all of the information and materials requested in the finder and it was also in november the current book provided an additional seven boxes of documents that genesis called through in addition to this with the gun documents before making the determination to stand in early december of two thousand such that you know insurance was getting worse spence of we just had at that point in time the collapse of enron world com so it's not surprising that the marketplace really you know insurance was reacting and that's another reason underlying the increase premium i see that my time is nearly up so i just well parents also i want to make sure i completely understand day after day alleged error on that certain documents involving attorney client privilege connection with these transactions with the undisputed record shows that when legal issues arose for underwriters underwriters to use genesis in house capabilities the lawyers in the claims department to seek that legal advice and in this case it was only with respect to here thank you counsel go forward if there was a material had first change after the august one conference call that it sued for a bad thing no decision there no it's hard to imagine something that's more materially adverse it could have deferred any decision pending an investigation there was nothing that prevented genesis from picking up the phone and calling cutter and fox and asking what information do you have about this press rel clear in the trance continental insurance case the washington supreme court refused to interpret and endorsement to a policy in such a way that it would render the endorsement
your fact to say that there are common facts to both the state law climbs on the federal climb the required purity over what are these common facts that's not to make because i take it you  you would agree that it's for the court to decide the inventor quite well it's for the court to be open to question about whether the show is deemed as a vendor under section two six but that the issue for the for the jury and the case is whether or not the parties are cold winters the judge has to according to be considered take that finding by the by the based on the exact same facts those but that ultimate question should go to the jury that correction of the membership equitable question well not a legal question well i believe it's inevitable  what was there during specifically equable claims up an ultimate question of law and presumably the jury could have to side of that to decide the underlying track as well as a legal question if it's possessed of the case  was why isn't the question of whether mr huber has or hasn't proven by political ponds of the evidence that he is inventor why isn't that an independent question and that's to be determined by the court and then on the trial on the issues that you're talking about or you are also asking us on this appeal to look at whether in fact there was an error in the determination of the district court as to who the invade decision at this stage which is now before us all of the discussion as far as been devoted to the jury question and more could a course be said are you raising the other question will would you up with each idea first rather than look at the issue as whether or not they were collaborating as a team and those legal mistakes i think permeated the initial decision fifty six talks about correcting in very ship based on mutual mistake i didn't see that anyone here argued that there was a mutual mistake right or that there was not a mutual mistak think with respect to the two fifty six if your honour's right there's a fifty six talks about correcting better ship where there is no evidence of dishonesty especially where there's a mistake that that's really that's that's the question is it neither of you really answered it i don't know if anybody ever has but if in fact the correction of the inventor shit does require showing should should be corrected and the relationship to the common law claims is involved in this issue i guess what struck me is that this is very different for example than the inevitable combat situation  appeal mr bell's counsel has never explained how issues could be necessary elements of each other in a strictly back up with each other and not present common issues under beacon theater claim based on the same facts and based that decision is much closer to the same broad based conduct as we have here so i believe that council can never explain  at inventor ship and decide in this hypothetical that the inventor ship was correctly designated based on all of the reasons on that side of the case that there's anything there that does
the morgans remaining on an agreement to repurchase securities that claim has been stuck in the mud for more than a year and a half now because of the state is under review before this court and a stay that was entered in favor of the new york class action there has been pending now for more than two years as we are here today and he is still in the once again back at square one with no prospect of progress in the foreseeable future in this case is a contract case this is not a case of financial industry regulatory policy i'm using not a case of i'm figuring out where a matter should be tried or litigated our papers is perfectly clear that particularly in a commercial matter the language of the contract an enlarged by construction or implication is what governs that is also the rule you know along online the united states supreme court cases i'm dating argued is that if they might have been appropriate under the federal arbitration that this case is not a firm of arbitration and so that is not in these of the spec so the only basis that the circuit court can rely on for the stay is is general inherent power to manage its stock  witnesses were something like that would certainly be within the hearing power of the court of the can work is education work and actually stayed on for a mediation perceive that sort of thing is within these are inherent power of the court this is an entirely different circumstance years and you don't even know what what circumstances might ended that indefinite stays are inappropriate indeed in abuse of discretion and that's what linda said and that's windsor has held in here we are talking precisely about the state more efficiently on a national basis in the class action but as we showed we file a motion to lift the state it brings us here today that no such discovery will take place for years because of federal law that requires  motion for to dismiss in a motion for question if you can be determined before general discovery proceeds and none of that has happened none of that will happen for an extended period of time by november of last year when the circuit  the motion to lift the stay there was no motion to dismiss there was no schedule for a motion to dismiss in new york the procedural wrangling there and one on regarding who was going to be the power player who was going to be the proper counsel only sorts of wrangling that is is that happens in federal securities class actions judy morgan pointed out in his freezer earlier this year and a motion to dismiss was finally to be filed in march of this year and in fact it was filed it was then promptly removed from the action they shouldn't be compelled to do arbitration so the fundamental framework of the contract is you have agreed to arbitrate your disputes there's no question but that is the case if you are going to bring an individual when you must do so in order to procedural basis we need to see how procedural aspect of another case is going to turn out in order for you to try all of us to decide where is this case going to go and the irony of it is the one place is not to go forward is in
are actively participat order to preserve either the financial viability of the party has been fined or their right to freedom an appellate review or on the punishment or the incarceration it was imposed by a trial  and the fact that once the judgment is over thirty days old or it's gone through the appellate process it is final and it is now not subject to all the and possibly the equivalent of the fourteen to one which didn't exist back didn't exist back in the early days of the state so when they talk about jurisdiction i think they're profitable to the subject matter jurisdiction or the ability to bait a final judgment see that all the places to not just do flowers to say that you can now have jurisdiction to use the power of the court if the court doesn't have the power court doesn't have the power the chief can't waive it and can't consent to let the court do something that doesn't have the power to do
developers can add a contractual obligation to pursue the third party responsible for the loss under its contract with munich re and  there is a calculation that only an expert could make if we're talking about our your obligation to me paid through increased premiums it's not a dollar for dollar you know we  you six hundred thousand dollars on this island claim there you are your premiums are going to be increased by next percent until we're paid back the six hundred thousand it's a calculation way it's repaid if he has to be the subject of expert testimony we're talking about the only the only thing we're talking about here is the obligation to write a check and my question is conceded that because of the lack of an attorney client relationship reinsurers couldn't sue directly for legal malpractise and any i submit that any where and here we have an issue that was responding gantz your client and they may be able to argue with an appeal but it certainly makes it more difficult to prevail when the trial court did consider the issue and rejected it and in a situation where somebody is being accused of not facilitating a settlement so i think the record quite clear and if the court has nothing further for me thank you for your time and again on behalf of the what we have to in this i understand the situation no contractual obligation to remit the judgment to the reinsurers would in fact have to come in in their home and file an equitable
you wish to prove at some point that you was interested party status also pursuant to vermont statutes if you wish to obtain interested party status which gives you the right to a a application or a decision you must speak you must sided and you must speak at the hearing so if you have something to say we'd love to hear from you first so the agenda is green see systems inc application thirteen yes one three seven for site plan review for change of use from residential to business office use for second floor principal structure located at ten east main the second floor of the building has been visiting apartments and we would like to convert that to use as offices so we're just asking for a change of use so that we can do that and in addition to that our original site plan and a change of use to retail approved us for ten employees and we'd like to extend that to twenty so  here and we've read your application so basically you're looking just for an extension of time to carry out certain practices that you do yes but it sounds like that from the time and i've been through that you know for some years it could be june to some years and when the eldest is that still well there may be days we may when they're going to generate more material for us because this isn't their primary business and mostly for both large both insulation which is what was working well for that but hopefully  well a significant portion would have been gone by the end of the year june fifteenth date for the new plantings so since you have agreement probably something want to hear from all of parties if they are represented here tonight located twenty four east main street jackaroos properties which we all see on parcel thirty eight each main street of parcels or the village commercial zoning district didn't subsequent to for the parties to resolve differences between them but since i personally would much rather see parties reach decisions on their own than the decision they're asking us to give them i personally would like to mostly no increase in the bill in fact there is a significantly significant decrease structure to modify plans for duplex of the proper look here for a lower bridge street so basically gary and jean are here but the sickly we the board and his application hearing last month closed the hearing which means we could accept no further evidence or anything else regarding the application subsequent to the meeting gary discovered that his computation acreage was and corrupt and indeed included some parcels being merged into this piece which were not his new application is basically asking us to reopen and just accept the new acreage classification which of course then also requires reconfiguration of live coverage to make sure that he falls  so the questions from the board above that seems pretty straightforward now just reopened so i think what we have to do is we have to make a motion to this situation arise in the past so that probably is why you've got those fears what will make you know for the staff in the future for that comes up that
thank you for bearing with us
community act i think c does not appear to defend on that ground but appears to center its defense of the of the trial court's ruling on the question of whether or not yes i think that that returning to creation contrary you're right yes i think that it's important to try to synthesize all of those cases and come up with a list of principles that can be derived from those cases so the first principle is that in fact there is a against a contract that stem strong contract rights that go from an ordinance there's good reason for that which is that the legislature should be free to repeal or to amend the witness and therefore  personally from himself in this or is this just to the public at large m compliance department including the person who would have the compliance department the federal court as part of a consent decree in the corridor between the parties recognized and the rest that adoption of that be independent contract and in this particular case which i think speaks to the question of whether or not there is the slippery slope of every witness becoming a enforceable contract the second step that took place which who did not work for the city of chicago and had no connection or knowledge of the submission call mr bosler was university of pennsylvania law and had twenty years experience in membership and fifteen in corporate governance he came to the city of chicago brought his young honor the city council and say this was a concept that was designed to rid the work force of patronage it needed to be independent that's the essence and that's where it would work to contract understanding and interpretation you look at the case  that contract formation is to hate welfare for services in exchange for the wage but here we have an offer that's very specific to perform a job that's a little bit with this was passed in september mr boswell wasn't hired until november and it promises that are backed up by a federal court judge approving the plan as well as the most critical aspect which is department with a problem and it went down from there and it doesn't worry that he lost that job there was the way in which the city went out he was suspended he was written up in the newspaper they accused him of trying to get his children into a special school in this little town and it didn't work again everything for two years so he got a job as a c e o with a not for profit so the question is if this in wants to hire company people and wants to do something like this again who is going to take that job and this is because of three factors the first being that there is this independent something to oversee something that he had to have independen some process by which i i could be removed and what the court said no it did not because what was absent in that case is what's present in this one which is a process by which she could only be removed by majority vote
top position and the other hand you've got a case on re enactment and for a number of reasons i think cases are clearly governing and opposition cases are not started with the fact that there's a special federal rule of criminal procedure fifteen governing depositions taking and use in criminal cases that have to be the enactment no there's no special rule there's a testimonial expectation paternity for the government to satisfy that aspect of the record because i believe based on the record as it was deprived of trying we can satisfy that standard what would you concede that if we got through these hurdles
purposes working toward the ultimate goal of revolt the following day sion of a despotic empire it was the master writer of the plane that led the fight against this band of all laws and traitors and for once is great strength and courage the lone ranger had discovered a plot directed by the black arrow lead and some of the sheriff in this posse to capture the bad men after a sharp battle and the prisoners were voted back to tell on by the sheriff's deputies while the ranger on the show stayed behind to look for signs of any black or old man who might have escaped but suddenly the sheriff make one move when i pulled the trigger probably sure you're crazy you know i hate i had to string along with a posse was around i even had let the boy get captured but i was just waiting for a chance when the two of us might be alone mister in case you want to know i wear our prisoner we'll get information out of you if we have to torture you to grab it out we'll take your mask off and find out who you are and then we'll put that mask on one of our own men to send him out in your place said i work out pretty good seeing that nobody ever saw you on alone with a masked man at the drop on him well it's all gone redskin part of his come high tailing out of the woods i had to vamoose bastard you come straight here i sure and you're sure i members of the like your allegiance should be smarter than that brady you know i've got a good  place soon hello it's a meeting to decide whether this territory of montana state or territory salt posting a request to the united states government to become a state of montana gets into the union is going to be bad for us just like i was going to make sure about the other two yeah i think i know what you mean
on retirement's so as of november first it's wednesday we've had prosecuted thirty five people eligible to retire and this year our number of people th