MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
morning your honor my name is david oppenheim and i'm here on behalf of arnold chapman of the underlying class i was actually here on the brochure case itself and in springfield on bridge you and i think it's important to note that trench novak the circuit court judge also was the judge in the bridge you case whose opinion or estimate we got from by the circuit court i think she got it right then she got it right now and the issue is that the center of the all this is camera stablish a conflict of law which is clearly a explicitly in the bridge to opinion a prerequisite to applying or potentially applying another state's law without conclusively establishing that well that other states is and that it's in conflict with  on the party who wants one law to prove it out it doesn't put the onus on the clerk or its clerks it doesn't put the onus on the opposing party to establish that there is no conflict us our law which we develop which the quotes developed which the courts and to enrich the courts are familiar with and there has to be a compelling reason to depart from it in what the supreme court has said in this context is the compelling reason is a settled conflict well sickness let's inten pretty much says the notice that was used in that case with presentation got to the second issue in this case because if you're running to do conclude that there was some sort of clear the air war in conflict with  defendant had been doing but the state but his clear intent from the complaint was to file on behalf of anyone who would ever receive any faxes from this defendant or at least within the statute limitations  ed because they have a duty to defend under that earlier policy the court could do if it elected to affirm on that basis as opposed to the basis chosen by the circuit court but again the circuit cross appealing from me advance these two theories in support of our position the judge ruled in our favor at the circuit court level and so everything that this group with me to  for us on the basis is in the record i don't know why it's any different but she in her opinion the supreme with our position on this issue was opposed to simply not reaching it ah but either
i just explained does small address that question and recognizes that when you are random act of violence like that it is totally and forseeable and there's absolutely nothing here either at the from bad game in the description of if the court feels that they have some other is it can be created here ah then you come to the question of whether there's an immunity that applies and we do feel that the fairness one or two of unity for the failure to provide adequate police of the gangster disciples i mean this is about as freakish and bizarre as you can imagine i mean trying to israel the should have an education responsible from there to something like this is you if that's a correct statement of laws in my latest years then your argument seems to be that they voluntarily assume the duty to provide a safe environment for this game
into a pole and i didn't realize you were a friend of john do you mean to say hasn't anybody called you the
been made behavior is just that important for the individual in nature delegation of course but also for institutional security and ultimately for public safety the question today is better to read  sentencing credit for vision specifically the one regarding programming credit in a way that encourages discourages that kind of behavior and it spreads near here that this program in credit is not easy to come by on like a good time credit which inmates accrue simply by avoiding serious disciplinary violations preventing credit requires an inmate first of all to be accepted into one of the handful of for find program five percent seventy five percent a hundred percent one must come into place and then in addition there are certain inmates who complete intensive time programming the special subcategory there's yet another category of credit because i think we all we want to hear that absolutely so with respect to the word statute actually in the statute then and now the sentencing credit statute does a centrally choose things  contains thirteen provisions that provide limitations on the different kinds of credits that can be ours and these limitations are based on specific offens thirteenth one which is a limitation on this very special programming rather and the question is whether to read that limitation in the same way that we have always read the twelve other limitations in the statute which is to the credits at issue were the credits that took place at the jail but in this court agrees about position the duke was wrongly decided and that there is no such thing as a class x changed the educational programming that mob in washington did at the department of corrections and he has done tracker on one thing but i do need to address a fair lot of things that i think are being misunderstood just as frankly i entirely agree with you about the term taint that is a term that duke uses you will find it not at all in my bad that the legislature changed it to fix that problem and also said that he doesn't exist and he should've gotten the credit doesn't fit together so wisht is a declaration that was filed on august first of two thousand and seventeen in the trial lawyers i got the reason from that person who were runs these programs at the jail and specifically lays out the problems that were completed
coming up he was a vision foundation foundation and then never heard the word foundation from these photographs ever again there was no indication in his cross examination or redirect whatever skase that there was a problem gymnasium before he testified no sir i respect th in not doing motion in limine you decided to the going case and it was clear that our intent was to offer this evidence to show negligence under the god exception because the public policy reason behind involuntary action or subsequently a matter especially so we were not permitted jabber trinity to lay their foundation that evidence had been part of that issue i don't lose before the court today and as i said there's no there was no indication given to us before that time with these efforts were anything other than voluntary and that when there were many opportunities to have called our attention to that by defense counsel there was more mature understanding of the board's motion to me and if i'm not if i'm understanding you correctly you made no what did you think the judge meant when he said for a limited purpose what what did you think that meant your honor thank you for that question i i don't have a good answer to that question can't state mentally ask him what does that mean your honor we do not ask i don't have an answer to that question perhaps we should have some clarification but in light of the exhaustive argument on this motion and the fact that the pro quo is permitting this evidence to proceed under the same
because that is approximately how long mr herrera had been in the state of illinois and it had been purchased here in the stable so he was not the only one charged and convicted in well over a pled guilty both been involved in drug deals with the same set of people before in fact i believe with the says prior to the twenty four hour surrounding this they had never met my client video he was struggling with the process of what he's doing on his understanding was clearly limited to some extent my position on this is that it's clearly something that should have been when you look at the medical records when you look at the medication it's clear reason care and i believe that based on what you see in the record and essentially the defendant's testimony would be about the statement that was contained in the post his right to testify what our standard of review for the right to testify is w  request to testify either before the court or to his attorney   correct in the worst correct i believe defense cases that tries to distinguish it by saying well in that we had evidence we had testimony from an investigator and from a doctor in this case we have only way to get in or out of the basement he had it with sticks yes there were three weapons used to forty five into three eighty i believe the defendant was holding one of because it came the motion came before sentencing but i think even under the you know standard there's just nothing in the record to indicate they he was medications but looking at the video and to combine effect the defendant didn't say i'm having trouble remembering things around in such horrible pain that i don't understand what's going on i just don't really see how that motion could have succeeded which is
order that was given was eighteen i am sure and there was a hearing at which arguments zintan on this motion in the america you know with this court decides that this was the second think that there would have been more evidence of that inside of her purse and it was proper to search that person even if even though it was not exactly a traffic stop so th
cases zachary trees versus happened here in a way in burger the guardian went out for the dog non disabled children of the war paying for their characterize history of the case acts as an extremely sad situation obviously my client or anyone else happy about the situation  the problem is the manner in which the guardian of doctor is sister allah in this case every crease it was mentioned that there was some agreement that this was to be used for educate even though it's not in the statute i don't believe they're used for educational purposes only now whose agreement was that was it in writing and was it made at the beginning that hearing  depended children but it's also to make provision for those adult and children's education so we believe that was that she she had essentially thank you thanks to both of you for your argument same grief saying we'll take the matter under advisement then take a short break break now before we take up the next
but we do know that he's at that point he should know and that was well within the statute of limitations period because it was even before it expired ok with regards to her at least we can definitely pinpoint that she should have known prior to song to represent them that some type of investigation work communication was had as to who the specific individuals involved were and because they were all and to be represented by the stained council it's reasonable identity of interest not that that requires the parties to be so closely related in their business operations or other activities that the institution of the action against one of them serves to provide notice to the other i'm sorry looked at the factors such as the same attorney looked at the fact that the complaint laid out specifically who she intended to sue and crusty she and she in texas just to the older of the ship the complaint they filed a somewhat unusual motion to excuse themselves from verifying the answer which was granted so even with the answer to the amended complaint doesn't even tell us who the specific until individuals were and it wasn't verified either or some time shortly before that because of the preparation the investigation she would have known surely if she's going to be disclosing herself as a witness and disclosing herself as a potential i just as the person who accessed the emails or have  another party and this is certainly not the situation here contacted the president who was following their interest men and follow their interests and that delivered those directly to their corporate attorneys not to the same much money that represented them in the sexual harassment case but the corporate attorney  we have these figure this out karen had no role in speaking to counsel and communicating that information to counsel she merely and i can get into that i think with respect to cross creek i think katherine's very different can get and when i don't get what i want them going to go against this defendant and say wow look at its relation back and allows a plaintiff to pick and choose who they want to target and that's not the purpose of them in six sixteen it's not  knowing that she's going to file a sexual harassment charge two months later and these e mails are going to be used to defeat that there's a lot of johns that one has to make in order to get to that point and there's absolutely no facts at all off the counter and believe knew any of them did anything to the contrary is arguments and again counsel disputes dance so i think that if we look at the answers to a driver tori's it's very clear and the record speaks for itself that that is a reasonable time that was less than one hundred twenty days
clear convincing evidence ensured that the fruits of his marriage and ensured the services the tremendous tremendous amount of services as testified to argument that she was to eighteen years the services of his wife in other words he never received any services from his wife and it is completely contrary to deal with  this for eighteen years he was the recipient of a significant number of services provided by areas where she did most of the art work she did the warden she did the cleaning she how how  continues to be denied those services because of the renders injuries that she had and she had shared rooms in both of our families she had five or six shared ribs she had about the state of the marriage before the accident counsel's talking about maybe what happened in the eighteen years leading up to the accident that the jury  the jury simply because the judge disagrees with or simply because a jury may hear possible return a different verdict based on this same evidence in this case the trial  record the basis for the trial of course the decision granted to do that will be the trial who was just focused in to seize upon one small sliver of evidence in this case which was of the accident there was a jury instruction submitted i p i sixty point zero on a violation of a rumor traffic statute the describes how you're supposed to i believe that if you review all the evidence beyond this was overwhelming that your son was bold negligent in a small proximate cause of this accident the jury heard the evidence they know what was going on  coming either way on a bike path and then he hit almost completed his term when he felt and heard this tremendous impact to the very rea fast as they approach behind and then after doing the cross the first motorcycle passed his vehicle like it was standing still he described the location of the areas of the pickup truck on the rear passenger side he found out that as a result of the impact on this motorcycle the entire box of the pickup truck was torn off its poles in there is no question but that a motorcycle bearing down upon him motorcycle in the correct way he never sees the motorcycle he doesn't move the right way because he never sees the water cycle he's not in the proper lane the motorcycle quality of issues such as negligence or the proximate cause the fact that fear among men might reach different conclusions emphasizes the appropriateness and necessity of leaving such questions to a fa
four thousand dollars reduction didn't get anywhere near the one hundred and twenty thousand hours during the war and that's where the court came in and said well the non renewal of experience barrier in a change response responsibility what her current salary was that is what he thought would be a fair offer differentiation i don't see differentiate something when you don't know what the heck it none of it supports a differentiation to go to the go to move on to the question of the jury's interpretation that there had been activity improper activities retaliation by the
is were there case number twelve days one three four five michael vance versus debra scott argument not to exceed fifteen minutes precisely mr edwards you may proce
you have it in front of you their bank account tell me what part of it says  an intersection at us route forty nine us route forty is the very same highway that is referred to in the dedication in those days  well now defendants are place main argument is fairly simple one we have to determine the intent of the parties when they entered into this there was no language contained within the dedication which is restrictive to us route forty or the lead role well it is a general  romney's reference to the first time to the fifteen day notice i believe that or quite correctly constructed that as being a burden and they can happen on any time in which they so  finally are ours two things mr romney's argument with respect to the introduction and verified evidence i believe first of all the record is silent on that honour's there are individuals named in this lawsuit those being either alike to or appointed public officials for the city of greenville although
this is where i have a problem is everybody i thought that saw the material that was destroyed said there was no residue on doing any of the parts many pieces and there was no think what it but there was nothing that was dangerous in that at all but is there a truck now if it was in the truck why did they confiscate the truck and destroy it because it was used to transport the destroying them that's great now how did they get into evidence that maybe these this couple had been had some prior charges against them or convictions just charges i know that one of the defendants had a prior
to support the change of the standard of review of the fund administrator in this case he very careful deliberate out of consideration to the claim for benefits there is no treating physician rule is nothing ball here there no conflict among the experts of two thousand colleges they both agree what the blood alcohol concentration of the punk was kept for about the time of the accident so all we really have here to justify the change of the isn't really the issue the question before the plan administrator was in light of the fact that the accident where the incident occurred can reasonably speak to has there's a plenty this blood alcohol concentration was a contributing factor and i think it was a before that his reaction times were slow to the point where the level of blood alcohol concentration affected his ability to operate machines and therefore that level of attacks occasion contributed to the injuries  by insurance company necessarily results in more money in their pockets the court has not applied that same test to self funded self administered plans under reserve there are there is no record by the way information regarding the funding of the companies like pool company and others establish these types of plans as an employee benefit plan so they can help them attract three teen qualified employees no employers has applied like this with the idea that it's merely going to be a loser benefit plan that no one collects under because if that were the case employees would leave their employers in droves the other point is your honor is that each year something like full company freeze the budget for this plan is not necessarily report school company yes he did rely upon the evidence that he had of the time which was the hospital reports and the hospital report stated that the accident occurred at twenty thirty four feet very new may or may have been a t thirty pm and that was the time that was ultimately hughes i was pointed out to the court so they have to get whether the action occurred at ten o'clock nine thirty or ten thirty really makes very little difference in terms of blood alcohol reading in fact earlier in the the selection of the standard of review is reviewed in a level that the factual determinations by the district court on trial in the record are under the clearly erroneous standard we submit that the standard of review in this court for a trial on the administrative go to the city they went to the city has  a i am based process are buil there was seven days
well i think you heard of there's quite a bit recollection she should just a blanket out she has no recollection of what happened in august well she could not say to the back she did go to venice she she made changes misrepresentation
is probably a lot of confusion between to start exemptions there's a basic exemption which new york state has to get over and audit the new york state department fire station finance it wants all basic star  of mail things happen and they don't go bill so in the city of schenectady at this point it's a vote to think seventy four percent seventy five percent of the basic star it's going to have a negative effect on the community and those types of things so it would be impossible and i'm not saying that anyone has to take thought but be you know go to treat it would be impossible for someone to discussion lowering it to a single digit number because people are concerned about the fact that neighborhood right now of it being really where they can actually be located does that diminish the concern  up our conversation today i think it important to recommend a sixty day period following the end of the expiration of a person on the review board placed by an agency after a sixty day period then the council would have the authority to appoint a member for  of course the phrase it is may unless you want to be and they did we did not consider what would happen next however the logic would be that person and serve they would serve until the end of their term the agency would only have the option to recommend someone if to the end of one term this likely would need to be in the amendment however he said if agencies are bound by the sixty day period it would be incumbent for the slots for the mayor and city council to have the same timeframe in any event those slots should be filled right away and john who will be coming  directly but one of them from one of the member spit so anyway i think that these probably two things here related to this one would be changing the existing legislation to say if an organisation does not make an appointment within he feel sixteen thirty days is too short p p fifty films should be sixty days then the mayor and the council would have the option of making that appointment i guess for me that's not a major concern because i would see us still reaching out to people just like i reach down as coakley reverend great speech do you have any suggestions of people you think might be effective so it's not any political connection or anything like august or september energy shortly thereafter that membership in the committee changed a little bit and they had we organized and have reached out to the city and asking for the establishment of a trust me to speak out that would allow for them to deposit money in that account which would be coming through the city and any disbursement would be reviewed by the finance department to make sure that this person was accurate and done appropriately underneath the  marketing and fund raising activities and any amount over that or any amount that had anything to do with a renovation to central park where the proposed dog park would be would come to city council would not occur until the city council ha for marketing and fundraising attempts efforts anything that had to do with changing or making any renovation would come before you no matter what the
moving car and because of the potential and convenience to the witnesses the parties and the courts and i think there's another car in this case that we need to consider counsel for the mother sa