MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
being a hospital for the purpose of the definition under medicare now i can see that's  would that be so if in fact the contract could not be terminated till eight different date a date during the pendency of the bank city they seems to me they should be able to submit
friday a single group of facts and needs to determine whether or not there is a single group of facts is whether or not the evidence needed to sustain the second the quote as i didn't brief it's a transactional test and it's whether or not the cause of action a rise from a single group of our backs regardless of whether they have differing degrees of relief and regardless of whether or not
we have the guidance of illinois supreme court on a case we have a dispute now between two insurance companies soley there's no insured involved in this appeal there was a company called sea of construction and a general contractor general of a company called international decorator is a subcontractor who is a court notice from the real briefly for whatever reason i think they're running  who did different work big insured see it down for a liability issue mutual for liability rising out of work of international decorators and that's the classic case where the courts fin and f and they took a little commission off there like a temporary services similar to a temporary services agency and that's with the factual issue the home office summary judgment for a mass construction in the case they cover different they both would be liable in damages to something and if they have insurance to cover we're with the insurance companies be required to cover maybe yesterday insured or we're talking chen is that how you pronounce  american state acted as as the complaint against and that didn't exist but they were consolidated and they clearly alleged and adds liability for construction supervision all over the project  believe that the ca indemnification discuss in a contract between american states and f and c have found you have the insurance companies is insuring both of them and why would there have to be any consideration of death of the indemnification because both parties have been covered by the insurance policies and both insurers come away from the transaction not only in any money correct
up with the financing that was that was into this a pita and part of the agreed to order so what else could the court have done what with the court could have done was simply allowed and the  move that that will have an effect on the overall possible offers that the parties can make that conform to one another so in essence when the court decided to award this piece of property to michael what it did was  expenses are with in this case there were tax returns represented by the parties and i was it is a farming operation which has a significant income of the residue if mr summers of desperate wants to do five thousand dollars a month i can't imagine a baby that would have like that you do get down to that gross income figure of six hundred dollars per month but that's obviously we're paying our expenses as we go is one thing i think it's a little bit of a misnomer to say that he's he's in debt by you know in excess of four thousand dollars per month and i don't think about isn't got her equity assuming that you know we had this issue with the dead still outstanding in the farming operation the idea was to give her fifty percent of the equity of this farming ration but michael got to keep the farming operation he got to keep all of the equipment he got to keep the income stream that that you knew or from that old the benefits from this particular farming operation so to say that he did receive some kind of benefit or that he was in some way that in the worst position he got exactly what he bargained for that's what he so you think it's a credibility determination if i recall correctly you are the bookkeeper actually didn't testify as to the debts that were in place as of february twenty second the bookkeeper primarily testified as to the income below the farming operation
considering however what the testimony does not touch upon is the fact that mr obrist appeared under subpoena that he stated in his direct examination and i'm referring here are to the supplemental coming in fact not and chill just a few months before the county filed a summary judgment just as and did you receive one or two jobs and he had been receiving work under the fascinator in regard to the july two thousand contract your honor stated that  database which then calculates who is the lowest bidder that information then and that entire file instead to this parents who then reviews those files so she of record keeping has been a constantly evolving and changing and improving type of system and that is why in february two thousand the county and mr over entered into a settlement agreement because office determined after investigating getting a claim that was made by mr oprah's that in fact there was a problem with the contract and that there had been split and that there was summary judgment to be based on a conclusion that after the date i forgot one thing for release was that you that after the during the time period in question we have a current lawsuit that the jobs always went to the lowest bidder and so there was no discretion being applied however that part of the opinion judge king's best at the very beginning that the county and the county did in fact a very lengthy motion to strike reiterated that in determining whether or not by the public employees speech or in this case an independent contractor speech is on an issue of public concern you have to look at what was the point of the speech why was that person there talking out when the person there talking up because the person was motivated to be concerns the distant bringing to light wrongdoing or be matters of public concern with the court says is that you have to balance you have to balance and here in this case of a public employee speaking out based on the first amendment and then speaking out under the potential costs and comes to the conclusion that the standard for the petition cries and for  sex discrimination where somebody has spoken out about sex discrimination clearly could be a matter of public concerns but brandish adopts the position that when it is a run of the mill appearing he is he does not appear to even understand what that it is perhaps there's underlying race discrimination claims and in fact he said that he believes and i think  perhaps it would be on a matter of public concern but i don't think they speak to bootstrap that he is the concerns by just being kind of involved in a
eleven it issued a rule twenty three words which provided quote her will make a way to convey innocence or marvin hilton to linda peretz to the extent necessary to satisfy her playing as a creditor citing the extent the transfer of voidable pursuant to section eight and that's exactly what this court found in its rule twenty three were that the creditor may recover judgment for the value of the asset is incurred by a disabled spouse and this court found that there was no solution between the statutory claim i guess the spouse with regard to this court say your client was not and yet you failed to do that but it it did that would have been solely bought up with regard to the rule twenty three order i believe but i don't think it's necessary given the broad definition and uniform probable transfer act to have done that quite frankly because as i say it's a very broad definition and it is there is no condition preceding indeed  doesn't require that indeed the fact is that condition receipt said for the nate b shows that the actors knew how to draft that particular condition preceded and they certainly could have put in session and beat or the value of the amount transferred against the first transfer rate that's exactly what happened here is that we're seeking a judgment for the amount of the cold steely money transfer the either not mature claim or something i claim that hasn't been rendered to judgement that it fills the bill with regard to the definition of claim and creditor under the u f t a there's no condition pre to that effect certainly if there were we would have followed that but i think that he is herman can rely upon the statute to indicate that she do need to do that indeed if there was the language that was in that section eight b certainly she would rather herself to a judge but i know no case in this jurisdiction or the thirty other states that has a uniform across and trace her act that require some sort of condition preceding in terms of years of her life and that made her creditor mr hill and so she sued mr hill and she sued the books and mr hill passed away during the proceedings and so the only that the mistiming provided the services for disabled mother without compensation for those better than three years at the end of her at the end of her life so she's certainly entitled hill's stake should be protected that has nothing to do with her and it certainly has nothing to do with the uniform fraud to transfer act there's nothing in there that says there's a prioritization of creditors it just simply says a creditor may in the appropriate manner through the program court it just hasn't been done the second event a complaint filed several years ago by by the sermon and this is the basis for the this action does not include the complaint that indicates that she did indeed care for her mother of the last three years of her life that a mother was one hundred percent disabled and she was not compensated so the substantive averts are there as well citation of the custodi
twelve dollars right disability and yet the other day said the sentencing hearing showed that he engaged in several businesses that your rights money cash basis he hates his employees several of them and he's always trying to game the system and and and he he's obviously referring to the fact that you know the defendant here failed to pay all character and conduct and then it was appropriate for the court to toss so consider the testimony that was brought out at the sentencing about you know his who was working several additional
one of those doors is going to close as revolving through the hallway when we're looking at lisa's e j the two sections that come into play will determine if the doors are opening or closing it is not nothing come to the quick probably going to have to make a determination some kind of determination and the revenue were good knowing that once he said i don't have jurisdiction and he knew that there was nothing sitting in brazil the threats to remove a child from the petitioners care to deny to wrongfully conceal a child and that's exactly what happened here in madison county this circuit court was presented with down hate country we don't know this child was will still be travelling on a us passport when they laughed brazil interestingly enough the family was told this child cannot come back in  grandchild and dad did not have return ticket mom to return ticket with a minor child and dad did not have return ticket zero concern expressed that dean was about after that dean had done anything that would preclude him from having time with the child by himself preclude him from being a then travelled to the way with his children sometime during the time in illinois her relationship with dean deteriorated she fled to domestic managed shelter with her children and shortly before the tourist musi analysis should properly and because we have this home state of the child more than that we don't need to get to any type of significant connection because again it was reached when we have no home state he did not expect taxes to lie on the stand he asked for additional time to bring witnesses to the motion to reconsider hearing to prove that you put yourself
see one there's the one if the client after the attorney has withdrawn from it if the client can also be the one that pursues a petition for final fees if the court doesn't already have jurisdiction over the former counsel it actually authorizes summons to issue for purposes term independent cause of action means that the two are not going to related to the other issues that are pending before the court the primary purpose of fire we see being enacted was frankly to critic create a judicial economy so part former counsel and we carry that through what does that mean does that mean he's excluded because he once stood in the in the stead of former counsel in terms of participating in fantasy what occasion whether it's part of the divorce case or whether it's part of an independent proceeding i don't think the statute intended that there's nothing in the face of the statute that says that that's what that's what that relationships creates once the final the petition is filed mr in going back to what i was saying in terms of the former counsel that title needing something other than your party in sort of speaks to some of the other issues that have come up if there is in this is different than what's happening in this case but the issue of  specifically identify if you as a party that that's not really what the statute mounts i think that creates a slippery slope they can be awarded in the name of the attorney and then enforcement in judgment can be can be obtained so just the argument that because they're close in geographics doesn't mean they're interrelated the  always you can file an independent proceeding and all the rights that you would otherwise have to still have but if i only see there's a particular safeguards that i'm putting you have to have a written contract you have to show that you have issued billing statements on a quarterly basis there are certain provisions that have to be in your contract in order for the divorce or to hear your petition for final fees finally a three year offers a similar safeguard i don't think the legislature to create a shield for the attorney to litigate and do whatever they deem necessary to collect their fees and the attorney in the former client has to stand back and either accept that you paid whatever they're claiming his oath or you try to you try to become part of the litigation and if the rules only apply to one side that certainly can't be what had been intended by the watchers the legislature worth pursuing just being unhappy doesn't mean that an appeal should necessarily follow so if one side is given an open door it certainly does not promote judicial economy i would ask that the court  desiccation it's been true where he brings petition for an improper purpose the lawyer to an individual would be responsible for legal fees of somebody like a former client but even that doesn't allow them to get
have not within five and not less than three years in agreement with with the man on the street say where you can just go ahead and solicit business or compete on in violation of the other quote plain language well let me ask you could it be  maybe the contract is ambiguous in one way but not another for example no vs i don't think the warrior have a look at this and say that say it was words is it is it five years is it six years is it twenty years is it a life and being and twenty one years be an out and you're set by virtue of that draw it's going to cost me a fortune to go to court repulsed by former employers got more money by god and they can take me through through the court so by creating this ambiguity on the tail and you put the employee through cause them some consternation after the three in five years well can i do it now and some of them may have the resources go get a lawyer and some may not sit well i'm going to be dress dresses in the context of is that we're really talking about here and in other words this is not less than language render the chemicals go indefinite is that the point of that question i think saying that it seems to me that you're asking whether book assumed that these five in three years are up held are they reasonable and enforceable time scopes  talking about whether under these situations the three and three and five years are reasonable that's really not an appropriate question the first certified question this  but even if it's suggestive it you ask this of west go all out of the blue so what would she what's the implicit what's the employer's business what's this what's that and i don't think a certified question that is a place for us to resolve an issue because if the guy's flipping hamburgers a mcdonald's that's one been hit if he's been looking for somebody trained it has specialized clientele that's another and so to answer that question in a vacuum which is what we're supposed to you know we're not here to answer certified questions based on the facts of a particular case in fact because that's not the way that is not the way even the question is phrased the facts of th war and the and then you go back and do that and go through all these factual issues and what have you but if hypothetically would hampshire question number two
package approach my plan is to spend the time i get to explain why i'm here should be no other conclusion at least since the only supreme court decided the patrick case but there we have limits conviction by virtue of the fact that the previous for her have now been converted to consecutive terms but the previous concurrent terms are still greater than the news the kilpatrick case that i've been referring to because there is a different application of credit against consecutive terms as opposed to concurrence or even the conversion of now serving thirty five years for the murder conviction to run consecutively nearly thirty five years is not greater d a modification to the manner in which a sentence is served does not constitute an increase and one sit and for the purposes of north carolina the peers and section thirty five years turning to the second issue whether the defendant consecutive sentences imposed upon the sentencing or his first degree murder conviction ran afoul of constitutional bars against double
post conviction pictish an alleging actual innocence extend to a situation where evidence comes up where that's just assume it could be said that probably he would have been convicted of second degree instead of
three children are still living with her we have a period of time where there is absolutely no ideas with discovery it was about a year and a half later that we first see the filing of a financial affidavit if you look at the record not believe i have it in my degrees attach the rest up behind she's voluntarily going after i'm donating sixty three hundred dollars a year to charity it just doesn't make sense as they would say this dog does not it doesn't make sense it does and you know the course says that he is in a difficult thousand and fifteen order indicates connerly him living  that's an example of the lack of credibility
in making its written decision did not determine it any of the witnesses lacked credibility well it certainly won't need certain funding for mars them to do so well your honor i believe that under the law they are required if there is an contradicted testimony it was acquired the testimony as well we didn't react as we intended that it was the intention of etc when you know the agreement is clear there was an attempt to get it at one time the agreement didn't go through then there was there's no dispute that there was in fact a series of blows from the partnership to veer east and there's no dispute that there was a payment in excess of three hundred thousand dollars in repayment of some of that mon court my name is carol pal speaking for the commissioner on all four of these he says the court is aware the commissioner's determination is presumed correct and it's the taxpayers for the burden of showing that for johnston's majority interest in the corporation therefore there was no option closing therefore johnston was never found not only by the competition not to compete but he was not bound to lump sum payment and the monthly payments the lump sum payment and the monthly payments first of the monthly payments were made on exactly the same day which is an indication that she skipped to the second machine that lump sum acquisition date of the shares that one ninety seven refers to the statutory language talks about an intangible acquired by the taxpayer after the date of an act and even if it were the acquisition of the attorney and hadn't come out yet but the attorney and his wife meanwhile got divorced and as part of the divorce settlement the contingency fees were split this court held that to come to the lawyer and not to his wife because he was the one who earned the income that it was an income to him in the same way here we have  in this case it was paid as part of a lump sum payments to john johnston incorporated for assets of the corporation but the documentation of all of the  i don't know what it's a gesture on because we didn't we didn't have any device as far as i know that no deficiency there hasn't been the question of evidence about what they did or didn't consider it but i think that the second point not the first one is there wasn't would be as it was with the d n a from a competition agreement over time you've heard it over time case and the point i was making was that nothing of the fact that there's a corporation that is owned by an individual in the individual it's every person in that corporation the corporations name them for doesn't mean it's not a
this is really a very simple appeal that should be very simple for the court to dispose of we are here on going room here is an attempt to establish what could be you know potentially dangerous or these burdensome prejudice that motions to stay or use a vehicle to revisit the was passed is more or less as a package of privacy related protections for individuals all citizens in this state
his position
interesting your honor is this for the st time counsel for the show's race in this argument that the complaints wasn't actually dismissed an erection proceeding the only reason that that matter has not been finally to suggest that there are any issues left with left associated with the enforcement of the settlement agreement is not sets the judge found the defendant had complied with all the only three requirements defendant had in connection with the settlement agreement was to move the road to pay for one dollar half of the survey and to buy a plane is with three so markers the judge found all of those during those three things have been done and that plaintiff nonetheless  this miss there there is nothing left to decide in that and to suggest that now deceased larry scholz was was a signatory to the agreement if evidence requests i wasn't counsel at that time i'm not sure how it came that schultz signed that some agreement but he signed that settlement agreement if he was dissatisfied with the judge's order he and mr schultz they have you believe to appeal that decision to you all they started their process and they failed to see that judge him he's decision finding in favor of defendants with respect to that motion for some what was not decided until march th that they should be in there as a part of the settlement agreement from the time the defendant undertook its obligations under that where the harm complainer is on going to make her and for mark the one issue i have with this case is there's a lot of reference to
on either the reasonable efforts case or the reasonable profit request what about the reasonable progress aspect of returning the child home so as formally to the real progress  are factors however that can also be considered in addition to the statutory factors and i think it's also important to point out beyond the situation factors where the will one of the to do under the circumstances which is relevant for the reasonable efforts analysis one hundred reasonable progress announces the goal not simply jagoff