MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
obligation to defend a suit and an option that the insurance company has to settle investigate if they so choose and of course they have to do that consistent with the massachusetts statute in place and not s single case not only in massachusetts but anywhere in the country that holds that you have a duty to defend under this policy form or any policy more in the absence of either a suit or some type of governmental enforcement action such as an e p a demand an anti trust a man or something of that nature i think it's also significant to think about what the insurance company has done in this context given that there never was a lawsuit  most even if they had some type of what the plaintiff would describe as a duty to defend the most they could have done would be to come in and take some position as to why attorney general was not a rival and they did that they took the position that attorney joe would not be liable because there is no recognized for duty in the context of a consensual sexual relationship not to break off in some way and not to engage in this pattern of breaking off a relationship massachusetts to the extent they've addressed that have said there is no such street so if the insurance company even if there had been a suit filed with the insurance company most like it would have done would be to come yes i disagree with my last counsel regarding the mediation i have read the cases they cite i do not find this a whole lot of them that hurdles that mediation and night that a non binding mediation requires an insurance company to  there are some cases in the context hasan paper obviously has been discussed in the context of an environmental demand by the government there's an antitrust case they cite i've not found any case that says that in the context of a  the cases that are cited here and i did not find any of them where the fact that there was a mediation or as what the court found to be constituted suit those are cases where there was some demands made by a governmental agency eleanor a has a sort of unique you're worried they there's a split of authority within illinois on this kind of thing and illinois has also found in a i believe in a context where there was run the country on what how do you deal with if you need to defend when there is a complaint filed the insurance company can compare the allegations very specifically made in a complaint with the terms of the policy and define what decided whether it has an obligation to defend what it wants to defend on a reservation of rights or whether you want to deny coverage and i don't know if same thing the court does it's because it is faced with a decision on a duty to defend the core compares the suit the specific allegations in the suit filed against the insured with in terms of policy so if you don't have a suit and all you have is some sort of vaguely standard vaguely asserted claim demand letter or something of that nature because very difficult for the if they want to and they can take whatever position they think is appropriate at that point they can take a position that the insured is not liable for whatever reason they don't have any obligation to settle
these courses learned and then went on to explain th oahu the night that he is june twenty eighth two thousand and one i think eleven o'clock almost in the in the middle of the night  really talking about the technical requirements that each party has to meet in order to get to that point and i'd like to just focus your attention for a moment on this question where in your claim coldest officers violet fours and fourteenth amendment and the police officers and then i went on but so you're saying that the court should have understood that as being an argument that this was court received the city's explanation i know  opposed it and the court found that it was clear that the city had no knowledge of the court's order and it was in the court's own docket that the city had not been served but the court's  for some reason the process was cut short don't believe there was any prejudice because the facts are what they are that the city and the court record his conclusive that the city did not receive notice of the order that created the basis for the entry of default in the first place and ok and just one thing i wanted to mention with respect to the sanctioned order i don't know if your honour's wanted to discuss that at all but we argued that there was no there is no jurisdiction because the notice appeal did not include mr child as an appellant nor does it reference anywhere in the notice that they intend to appeal the sanctions order so there is no jurisdiction obviously this is a we have some interesting cases a recent one that i was involved with the death of bali that dealt with this issue in this particular case you know eight hundred dollars sanction to an attorney  lot of money to the city can have a very significant impact on the on the attorney if are you in a position to perhaps agree that those sanctions could be waived so we can d more with the substantive issues here and not let that cloud our judgment i'm not in the position to read that myself but i could definitely request that those who have the power to make that decision is whether there was in the in the notice of appeal and that and people documents whether counsel made it clear or even obliquely that in this case he was appealing the sanctions himself if he did then we have jurisdiction under our law which he didn't then we don't right and he didn't and there and i would have made the argument if i had looked at it again and found that because i read the cases that you're discussing if i and we objected to her declaration because it consisted of entirely here say and it really only addressed it didn't really address the menow he didn't have any evidence that would be used to show a city policy or custom and then the other declaration was from someone else who was going to testify that he was not wearing the same kind of pants that the city claimed he was wearing and so that was really irrelevant and had nothing to do with
act cases which require a very low evidentiary threshold for submission to a jury and asked from wise versus fair alliance nk and also martinez for vs korea shipping court which are cited in my in my evidence that what the record high dose which went there at least you know during the preceding twenty four and was forty eight hours it did not say that either was or was not snowing his testimony and the import of it what he's saying is that if there was three to four inches of a solid sheet of ice then they couldn't work he said that but he said it was not anything that prevents the master giving such an order heavy stuff it was necessary however the answer is that the deck a man has the responsibility of honor the question of whether the slush there had actually turned into a frozen surface something that only the man on removal of the the rybicki case if you look at the facts was not just a question of the slippery conditions there was an open unguard honor is that the area where mr martz was walking and working is not a designated passageway walkway sidewalk gangway it is part of the open flat area of a bar which is two thirds the size of a football field think about that from its two hundred feet in line it's and unnecessary think had to take place and in fact i think your argument would be more compelling that there is a judgment call here as to when you  in which mr larson could have introduced proof that it was unreasonably slippery first of all he himself could have said that this was much more slippery than the normal condition he didn't say that he said
a biased or simply insensitive and whether the insensitivity assuming that's what it was had any effect on on on the finding chinese people should look like or when someone who has any chinese life in them understand but of course that the petitioner is the one who brought that subject up by saying he was perceived somewhat funny so i mean in effect he started i think they did your honor and what respect i think that the fact that she had decided that he didn't look so nice made her also decide that the fact that he said that he'd been mistaken for being chinese  which is not all that unusual for someone who is managing because they do have some chinese her ethnic heritage in them made her decide that he was lying and when she decided that he was lying to her in that instance a particular group in indonesia would attempt she didn't use that information or to use that connection to apply for asylum and i think it went further than that because having decided that he was lying and then having  appeared before the immigration judge on april in april two thousand and one when it became clear that testimony was not going to be able to be wrapped up in that day she extended the hearing to another day in july and even gave  as your honor pointed out earlier petitioners had put that issue into play in the case by claiming that even though they are not ethnically chinese that they are perceived to be chinese by in the nations and therefore that they've experienced and will experience  documents i needed in my job or i just had problems and she wanted to get specific incidents she managed to elicit specific dates and incidents which were teachers council had not managed to arrest them so in fact she helped them develop their merit to the actual claim for relief and i don't she did not find she found him a lack of credibility just on the limited issue of whether he filed his asylum application in a timely fashion and hardly any evidence of that in the record there were just some comments in the application itself that there'd been some stoning in the past but other than that really limited our evidence so happily concluded there was no well founded fear of future
national police still use torture in order to obtain confessions and they do so without with impunity again because these factors are supported by the record terms of the country are by the government the adverse fact that that was that was one of the factors also included in her address credibility by and with in reference to that admission fee in no part of the record before the immigration drug was ever present in the questions and answers that were presented to claims that he was making and that the evidence in the country report specifically with regard to his claims that other they were intermingled and he did intermittently clean vote fearing the army political parties i wanted to harm him and he he interspersed in there references to various political parties and vaguely assorted members of maybe one maybe the other political party had right after that i would assume that in fact is true let's assume that that's what he had the position he had access to these secrets because of his position and he knew of  would not want that kind of for that information brought out in public you would damage their current status your honor what would i would indicate first that he's indicating that let's assume that the person who committed it is now involved in a trusted position and that person would go to great lengths not to have his prior corrupt act exposed b those things are true but i think that's really stretching credibility in this case especially when you have now you know five people transitions from one administration to another all representing changes from one political you know one majority critic look we know from our fact that people are in government if it doesn't ensure that they don't have skeletons in their closet that's what i'm trying to get you to focus on i'm accepting that there's been a peaceful transition but there's somebody in there out there in that current political structure who has this horrible skeleton lives cause and this is the guy becomes very active guatemala is going to blow the whistle on it or he fears that oh if this guy crosses into guatemala to you know have his henchmen knock him off really i know i'm not trying to write a screenplay but i'm just trying to test your positioning the government's position as to what doesn't stand you know any rational it doesn't survive any rational trust that the country report at that time even in one thousand nine hundred seventy the country reports said there is no evidence that anybody has a legitimate fear
struck the only hispanics are by my calculations prospective black churches were struck at a rate more than six times the rate that white prospective jurors were struck as this court has indicated a court man firm videos discriminatory purpose mr smith was arrested by the same officer who was stopped him earlier that day especially because he was black he looks suspicious in that particular of long beach and he also told him to get out of findings of fact as to the racially discriminatory you should preemptory challenges must be must be your honor deputy attorney general gary lieberman for respond and first i would disagree with allen's counsel that there's overwhelming evidence of purposeful racial discrimination i don't i think that  had some you know two relatives that were involved in criminal activity with the fact that this juror had family members who are in law enforcement who we socialize with and haven't reported any negative experiences so these the police that day and we've seen that that has happened and did in fact happen let's various police departments it was even discussed during johnnie cochran's funeral yesterday and  muscular african american male i think that the alleged motivation to plant the narcotics and of course i wouldn't you know i there's no evidence o
that that was entirely proper with regard to her all she was doing was characterizing this as a business relationship but it was it was hate kwok rating individual who is making contacts had directed by  that's why we believe the conspiracy between cardenas in tunisia stretches beyond march through april twenty third april two thousand and three it stretches from the fall of two thousand and two to the summer of two thousand and three it's entered good related even though the conspiracy and well take for example coming back and giving him back in quantity of the  pretty but i don't agree with your on that because i think what was wrong with that is that then you get completely away from the conspiracy and you're talking about something completely separate from the evidence at trial i mean there were so minimal evidence about his connection with montana and that he did anything wrong and then they're bringing in the still hold that occur in  june where they're talking about a completely shattered deal where he's going to squat cocaine for methamphetamine which i mean if you went through certainly that can't be integrated and it really related are inextricably really are those williams case also when they talk about number one it's within the temporal scope of the conspiracy number two that it i think williams was the case where they heard the drugs were still to the defendant stole the drugs themselves and then they in they wanted to introduce that fact but it was all part of that same conspiracy was off part of what it actually been char in this case if you say well deliverable amount not not because it was simply possession but there's never any clear ruling on what it is or how times and in the evidence you don't know what it did because there's only the one  outside of the time she says i'm looking at all the evidence in this case you'll find him guilty of conspiracy to distribute meth period conspiracy to distribute during the in an indicted charged  anything more there but all the other evidence all the other subsequent that that were allowed all occurred outside of the district of my town and it wasn't until the court changed the  it in fact of the tenth of a gram is exactly the amount of methamphetamine that hardiness brought into montana so there really is no question and that you know the jury's question about the indictment the judge thought really no answer on the on the the harmlessness of it all as to the other issues i'm satisfied at rest on the breeze i would like the court to know that i lost my copy of zavala and charge never really supports that and there's two different characters ations by the judge perhaps this this crime if they find one of them more correct than the other but if the court is saying that it's
reason for suspending and terminate specifically she refused an order from her supervisor to draw blood from a patient and as a well documented there was medicine that was supposed to go to a pa her pocket and as a result after that the plaintiffs did not ados any evidence any pretext and so for those reasons were properly granted summary judgment on that claim turning briefly to the retaliation claim that claimants failed for many of the same reasons st to complain about not receiving overtime is not a protected activity because it doesn't impose an employment practice made on lawful by title seven if it wasn't based on any race claims in any event the suspension persis pension and terminations she didn't prove that there was any causal connection between a protected activity of filing these complaints and her suspension termination for the same reasons as the st claim the city had a legitimate not retaliatory reason for spending it terminating her at the issues that i mentioned earlier withdrawing the blood from the patient and the medicine that was found in her pocket that she had signed for and that never made its way to the patient i do want to just highlight for the court that the the hearing officers who were involved in the plaintiff's suspension and terminations were impartial they made her they made the determination to terminate her without any personal knowledge of the situation they didn't work with her and so that was that was
asylum or be at all proper we denied relief because of the fact that he was found to be a persecuted well from our staff from the incident that's one of those issues where if he was applying i mean correct but in terms of materiality to his claim i mean the fact that you lesson that one instance doesn't necessarily involve that he was not credible at all or that this question consider that after judge erred people who were not involved enough in the war with the proving government i mean they were specifically called in because that syrian terrorist organization had overtalk a police station and that's why they were called in he never made any father a nice thing in saying that he wasn't involved primavera why yes he testifies the nature of what happened why he and that he testified to that he could have called a guy called in the military tribunal to answer for his specific  terrorist taking over the police station and that was the period verifying that the news here and his issue the whole time has been that he was part of the government's response to terrorism and that's what he was in the region and that's why he's why he did why he did it why he was there why he was fighting these terrorists so that it goes to political opinion what goes to the fact that he didn't care what their political opinion was he was there to to during his interview covered a lot of things other than just the one civilian they they covered the question of torturing and killing other people find out if an alternative basis for reviewing the case if we disagree with you on adverse credibility what about the merits of persecution right was that established or not well as i understand the alternative you know saying that even if this person was credible he had laid out an africa case he had carried his or if so what you're saying is that we disagree with you on everest credibility we have to send it back in the military this is not a protected status as he was in the military throughout this entire period of time why do we even need to be concerned that you know past persecution if he doesn't qualify well as well foregoing we cannot fi and further find that the respondent provided insufficient evidence to meet his burden of proving that he is a refugee or should i not read that as he cites the fact that we don't think and i guess you could you could you could take it that way  a little later on the same page there is a reference to the failure to establish that any fear from the government or entities would act with the acquiescence of the government other words that shining
must determine that each project children are understand and accept each of the following principles and then he talks about why he identifies and that he says ok now i'm going to ask you and the supreme court he says usually only one of the questions is asked and i think the phrasing here it's different than the phrasing that have been used in other cases that have been decided by the supreme court  thing and really more even their testimony is plainly inconsistent
six one nine zero four alfred martin versus mark a lady in all your case comes down to whether the f i d permit allows one to possess a gun in the home because you frame the issue is whether the class a license is the least comprehensive bailable  you know constitutionally this war prohibits the issuance of a license to carry for anybody who's been convicted of a misdemeanor nonviolent misdemeanor they were being disqualified if they committed a felony under massachusetts law if he had committed any violent crime this sort of get his held that crimes of domestic violence certainly exclude someone from protection under the second amendment firearms identification card shall not entitle behold to possess a gun except on a firing range is the only place you could do it you can't do it in the home all of the cases refer back to pre ninety they're pretty thousand nine hundred ninety seven cases crime and promoting public safety under that approach this court doesn't need to address the state law questions that are raised by dr martin his brief namely whether possession of a firearm in the home or not or what the status of a permit to purchase is under that approach the square make clear that the state legislature can regulate by category and just categories of people from firearms possession and that  home for self defense even assuming that the second amendment is implicated by this case must be upheld it is substantially related to important government interests and here it is the nature of the disqualification present facts about whether he's a good person whether he's been rehabilitated because his entire to entitle to legislate category that booker and this court has never suggested that you could bring in as applied challenge based on whether the constitutionality of the massachusetts firearms licensing statute it's the chief's position as outlined in our brief your honour's that the chief should not be held liable under section one thousand nine hundred eighty three for simply enforcing a mandatory state law the categories as my sister correctly pointed out have been numerated by the massachusetts legislature and simply put your honour's that she's here and are tied whether or not initiate a license to carry an issue under these circumstances we're not license to carry because it was a non discretionary function of state law set forth by the legislature thank
adversarial let it go and plenty of administrative judges decisions that were issued under the old s s are even though they talked about credibility they didn't do that they were lucky that the consistency of the that i am saying they are since i'm not doing what i would need to do to get them treated the noncompliance c e o and there's really really only one piece of any of those records cited by the  positive scrape and for any controlled substance any non prescribe controlled substance we are not going to keep risk these two are you know with that shows up again there's no suggestion there that his treatment was being impeded compliance as a as a rationale for find me and that you know the symptoms aren't as as severe as mr kasuri testified and you know there's there's no surprise that the provider cut off of any pay any better prescribe medication