MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
to preclude coverage both of these exclusions as the insured contract exception to the exclusion which applies in this matter such that the exclusion should not apply insurance contract i surely is that is that this case and their case somebody was claiming that there was an injured country is that correct at least good is that a fair statement that somebody was making the statement that there was  individually and so i don't think very private statements can be made and i think it needs to be at this case by case basis but i think you need to look to see if there is any provision in there without having language and that would support the there and what's presented in this case and i think it's no going back to the fact that for purposes of the insurance coverage and if you needed fact i think it is very critical that that was just a one count contribution action and i'm not  suggest to the court is it due to the trial court it is substantively not the least bit different with respect to which part of this indemnity agreement applies to this case the talking about this here be and clearly under the illinois supreme court holding in virginia sure as well as its holding in westinghouse three actually against the public policy in the state of mourning comes to construction work when it comes to health care in other areas it's not outlawed by statute but it is nonetheless very very strictly very narrow exception to that the narrow exception is the exclusion for rooms away injuries only applies only applies i'm sorry the exclusion for employee injuries should prevail based upon the employee exclusion otherwise known as the employer liability schoolteacher and a contractual exclusion because the insured catcher exception doesn't apply in this is been addressed contract of insurance to insure someone for their home devices defects foibles why limit it to tort liability why wouldn't it relate to anything else this will ultimately the court may find that only subsection b is a political here but as of now based on the pleadings subsection a is at issue and under with a duty to defend the allegations of the underlying complaint even bring in the potential willful misconduct the gross negligence or willful misconduct of home depot so what is gross negligence me or maybe a better question would be how could this be an insured contrary thier home depot was agreeing to be liable for its negligence or willful misconduct
matter is whether a primary contractor must record a claim really within four months after completion of his work in order to force his lane against that's the only time that additional one armor up comes into play it doesn't apply to the people who have an interest in the land and the tiny village the improved contract was made and that includes the back discussed but the fact headers in many cases are certainly real are are situations where there was a in congress of a property destruction contract and a contractor failing to report within four months in all those cases the interesting but that have nothing to do with what's going on in this case for him today that the statute then was just one samples six months statue of limitation any other third party in fact who takes an interest in the land issue isn't i don't receive the four ma statutory nulls it doesn't say
out as as the aggrieved party here that they were in a financially dire situation in this case as some are legally i'm sorry financially constraining them and them and this mr bryant is isn't the issue here for  and that may be true mr brown also had close ties to the community he was in this neighborhood frequently and he would stop from time to time when he was in the neighborhood and this was not we're not talking about a strong offense here we're talking about and i think it makes the most emotional distress to some people but on the record here on a special circumstances of this case i don't think that it would cause emotional distress excuse me a thank you thank you thank you violating that is now our standards under wraps and it says no communication with again the location of the picketing but it was the residence i think both of those things made heavily in the trial court's mind on but neither should the president mr barnett from picketing in front of their home and certainly not from magazines that mr barnett had made himself front and center in certain magazine articles and mr barnett was playing those out in on his web site and he was also pointing out that they continued engineering continued to have them selves out as professional engineers when in fact they were not at all since the engineer company and that was the crux of his website and the purpose of it and i think  different mind aliases is so that he could email the petitioner and he communicated with her family and friends and he did other things that were so regis just through the
number two given the fact that they did not have enough arise in the story to receive i would say that the subject matters that she was not present however this court has previously determined that this is a portable issue in proper county's highway commissioners finding that this was a necessary project that does not negate the fact that this proceeding the petition to alter the roadway was not even filed referenced again and again the court brought out that you were actually releasing the eminent domain issues correct correct and that's why this court dismissed it saying that it was an impermissible collateral atta to be a final judgment the court only considered there to be a final judgment on august seventh twenty four teeth there was you know what in the circuit court did not make any sort of things upon meri resolved august twenty first twenty twelve and gave them seventeen twenty twelve orders left numerous issues up in the air first and foremost there was no description of the property second there was no language in there upon  acreage didn't even specify that the amount of that exact amount for the property that's not to take will be except that it did say that there was the taking involved the point seven per acre litigation to be reversed and vacated or used upon the fact that robinson township has failed to comply with the requirements of goldman we're also asking for this court to reverse an vacate the august seventh and that does not happen whether or not there's been any sort of harm is not germane and that's actually quoted in not only that you have retroactive retroactive passing can not the court issued sanctions because she felt that this matter had been what's put you concluded on august twenty first twenty twelve and she found gas a number of original order that actually you know i'm confused what confuses me is when you read the b m r case order it's all about the eminent domain it's not about commence here and it's all inappropriate and that's why they basically come out with the ruling that they do you can't collaterally attack the eminent domain case because it was a judgement and you didn't appeal so then that did not going your favor and so then you take the second approach that it really wasn't concluded and that's when you file the summary judgment which then explains why the trial court judge may have issued the same sions because she clearly believed it was her decision that it was the final judgment back in two thousand and twelve that w crux of the matter is whether or not we do determine whether or not avoidable and then and if there was a conclusion a judgment that the court did have authority doubt or judgment and then there's it was collateral attack which they didn't have the right to do  they are deficient petition these and according to them that was a little confused by that are they talking perhaps there was an agreement that they could file be amended complaint well first there's there's
to ask several questions and that this case is not by jackson because the reasonable the fact that he didn't
follows lake effects existed in the concrete foundation and associated foundation work by design create concrete and that after the concrete foundation associated foundation work was completed i ha so following up on representing what's in there is paraphrasing he's taking a really liberal and correct version of what mean it's oversight so maybe i should join to supplement the record with this but this must not submitted to the trial over but it does prove that the there are facts out
privacy in the mud room and that the officers violated that expectation by proceeding through them agreeing that that is how ok that is right and that part of this second category you're talking about d privacy in that in that space that this case involved the door to to basically have a covered porch in which in which there were many other indicators that he did not expect dirty laundry oh well he had to get an expectation of privacy in his in his appliances that this is and this isn't a case like peyton in which in which officers the rifle through his belongings this was his face as i said that had more than one that had more than one use the odds that there was testimony that the that the door was open for forty five minutes and i think depended to suggest that this amount of time between forty five minutes to an hour was not enough time for any subjective expectation of privacy in this space to escape if the door w
i'm on have another drink armstrong has been called one of the other islands on business he asked me to look after you will he return how long will he be he might be several hours miss bradford your good friend armstrong has told me about you i am i don't know your madagascar  i'm sorry i should have known were no other white women on the island oh i'm not afraid i'm s what's going on here fella been annoying you know he's been my name's thought i had been kind enough to entertain me while i was waiting what were you going to do not even things up with him for the affair with who told you about that why i was in the next you know was down there pretty soon but i couldn't help overhearing i'm sorry you know one doesn't expect to find women like you and i'm not drinking anymore no no now you get out of here and take your nice drink along with you i know i'm going to love you don't be fooled by the spell of the south seas that you read in books there are a lot of things that you won't like i must admit i didn't get the best impression in the world not terrible died this because it seemed expedient hang around and if you needed anything from me to tell him but i'm not be needing anything believe me on a day for you to remain yeah i'll stay you know he don't generally treat him like he does you this is no place for a white woman to come along i came here on business this is no place for a white woman to come even on business thank you mr stone when i'm in need of your system i thought it was my pleasure to serve the ladies when they requested yeah i never even know he was  you oh wonderful girl i'm strong you know that i mean how i most certainly do i wouldn't leave her alone if i were you i was done it isn't quite safe what do you mean she's the only white girl here and well no white woman would be safe with mike let's on the same island i know it that's why i'm anxious to get out of his debt to gambling that much as the plantation worry about the plantation show that you appreciate the many sacrifices you've made for you yes yes you're right must think an awful lot of a man to come to a place like this and absolutely right on a fellow who didn't appreciate it would be just no good exactly say you're a great this is goodbye i couldn't have done better myself you know it's a funny thing but the first day i saw you i knew we were going to be married going to be married by sure we are gone very about her she's not going to run away rather be fool enough to be carrying them with me do you i don't suppose you'll be food enough to carry them any place have you got it right here i'll be like that sure i know i thought of how many did you bring with you well the
first one looked like and he was essentially normal he then they also requested an m r i would destroy your magnet which he thought would better assess the damage and the procedure was never approved or ruled silver's objective findings his examination that is sometimes take a step back you've got conflicting medical opinion you have to concede ok and rather than going down that road you know indefinitely did he have any complaints about his knee problems prior to the summer first  like he wanted didn't know what he's being treated for it was you know he had vehicle issue first then he had the need as well true but it's really there's nothing to prove to him if he was having issues with his knee when he was lower extremity to treat the ankle injury contributed to the issues with the claimants need so you have to take the employee as you find them yes your honor but that does not necessarily mean th of disbelief your complaints treating doctor for his ankle and he noted i believe it's the first visit ten out of ten level of pain diagnostics were performed the pain did improve  february the first visit in february that he was at this time it will to begin physical therapy for the ankle two weeks later if he returns and complain it's a neat pain this coincides deposition to essentially the same conclusion additionally i would like to note that as the initial medical treatment is an advocate occupational weighs each piece of evidence and has come to a conclusion that it's not against the manifest weight of the evidence and you are just very briefly in brief appellant notice that all of these refute any of dr silver's medical records it only reviews dr levin's records and i am an m r i of the knee i think the commission in my opinion the commission has placed the appropriate right weight on the evidence and
we are free yes i'm really happy now to say you wouldn't know or something and i must go well goodbye molly name you and he you know oh through you protest you well listen to me leslie i don't allow any prime minister of mine to protest have you heard the news no you haven't well i'll tell you you tell me because i can keep a secret better than anyone in the world i've even got shakers for myself i can't listen last week i hid a packet of cigarettes and i've asked myself time and again where they are and i i've got five kings who really small
is the personal injury recovery to the extent and the decision when she found that there wasn't a really there's nothing else to deal with in this case and she and her decision was pro
and they're going to be playing franklin here franklin coached by m and she's traveled to mexico so mexico almost every year in her mind that would be  on both teams fifty percent you heard the coach franklin telling matty white if you care for socialist three thousand say conservative on defense you know that's a good thing tell your players when you're out there you're just trying to play basketball so sometimes it's hard to keep that in how the city joy ton of demand so our by the way said he was in the production nine point five second the front end of the press has been very effective back and not so much going to drive the truck to be one extra player back they don't need to have all three they don't need to have three girls all that you just said put a passes out second personal politics second team five on franklin fourteen seconds first personal foul the six person on the westwood in the second half sidney griffin with the shot oh great can you can go to school for one if you want but you know what really matters so much different things that you're focusing on so many different things but when you can kind of analyze your left me out of bounds going to the west we will have that last play great again great interior pas nice given go there but again it's not the  to stay with franklin
that proves she changed her story i mean you just can't pull information out of the air and say if you say this to the grand jury if you don't have a grand jury transcript with something before the gran girlfriend was allowed to blather on and on and on about things that had no dates and no hello been seen at least in my mind
until at least nineteen eighty the shape and contour of the drive did not change and we know what the measurements of that were we know that the north south that there was any change during that period she could only say that there was a change after that period in quite frankly we look at years we would agree that after that period of time there was a place that is obviously over the driveway and he said that he till till eight feet six inches from the east  there was water on the drive absolutely prior to that but yes you see the difference if you prepare  in the swagger case that you cite to have refers to the natural flow of the surface water you're not talking about a natural flow here you're talking about something that has been created th that was our burden of proof a trial that was mr pilot heard the proof and it was a pretty high burden had to meet their convincing unequivocal evidence didn't do it that's why the trial judge ruled against fence the because of the procession and allow them to go back to use the driveway the way they used to it's fine says it's going to be otherwise you couldn't go back to using the driveway the way you did for all  that's the that's the only way to do it
congratulations when you got to the eighth grade just at the time when you were going to rule the channel and middle school burned to the ground and from then on you were in the high school and during that time we had a program of the number of students who came from a household w
having bad dreams of violence and suicide and his parents did not continue to monitor his his health even on his doctor's appointments nor did the doctor's follow up even though he was being given medicine that was again education and i q of eighty five but he also had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder and sunni's prior to this incident he'd been having nightmares and was not sleeping well but also he was on voluntary this is a child who was out of it he was not he was familiar with the criminal justice system i believe in common the way with miranda rights because of teeth so his knowledge of the criminal justice system is limited to what his watch over clifford figure in criminal court where this should have been brought in the juvenile court however first we believe it should be vacated regardless of whether double jeopardy attaches from  because the state's conceded he has to be retried on the home invasion counts because you can't you have to figure out which one oh maybe just  disorder and processing information on in fact the defendant on this videotape i responded that he did fine in school besides math the defendant says that he has no prior criminal experience but of course he's been question five and seven that he was naked under the under the sheet that he was covered by the tape shows that he was covered with a sheet up to his armpits we don't know i don't think the partner shows what's under his sheet so i just court but first time is don't count we need to look at what the substance of the doctor and sat and and what the document says is that it is that it's impossible to tell before trial whether these two incidents that i is i think one just may think oh yes i want to come to respond to the defendant's argument that it was actually legally impossible for the court to transfer the matter to the juvenile court after a trial  old transfer unless it was the state's attorney who filed a motion for a discretionary transfer in advance of the trial because the how many times it's how old warning to someone who doesn't understand it if they don't understand it they don't understand it in fact there were repetition of those warnings when someone doesn't understand it probably more likely to make them eventually say i agree rather than actually illustrate that this individual understood his miranda rights his miranda warnings and finally the states noted that there wasn't followed when the following her after he was released from the hospital and prior to this incident it is important to  who's been diagnosed with mental health issues that's being given medication that is not meant for this particular age bracket unless he's being closely monitored by a doctor and that simply didn't occur and this case and
what if he said that this gentleman came in and pulled a piece of paper out of his pocket and said i've got some notes here from my daughter rebecca that what i want in the will do changes opinion about whether or not the test marry
breached the duty to defend him without first deciding whether there was a policy in force and not cancelled before the law was or wasn't the point that he was making was that that was a determination that should have been made in a through a stop and cancellation i submit logically is closer to a defense that goes to the existence of the policy whether it was in effect on the date of cost then a policy  again and disputed indicating that this policy would be reinstated the same number was used to saying you know that the premium a little different and maybe take the first because it's a different coverage yes well prevent insurers stubble from applying it's distributed indicate that you have not even acknowledged there was a cancellation is that true i think that there was no proper cancellation and as i said  building he told the court and it's in the record exactly what was owed with respect to the two policies didn't pay five hundred ninety six dollars the states are retreating from two thousand and two in the premium the pulse is going to get cancelled because the policies canceled it doesn't exist is there a dispute above it there was a dispute that potential doesn't mean the state  is a case where there was no contract between the parties seeking to be covered the insurance company but there was a country just wasn't necessarily with that particular per own forces what do they mean it doesn't it's tennis thirty eight seventy seven i think is the number or other acceptable something i can't remember the word but does that mean it has to be it has to
here it seems to be reverse you have to take the evidence in the atmosphere will to the defendant very slight evidence of even dubious credibility is sufficient here according to the illinois supreme court to ask you is it your position that they're very slight evidence the student entire transaction or that there must be some evidence some very slight evidence pardon me as to all three shots with th and whether or not regarding the struggle if the lesser included offense instruction would apply if there was a struggle and then something else or or food appl shuffling fire during the struggle and people's position is that no no you don't get a lesser included offense instruction if there's evidence to show that a struggle happened it ended and then subsequent one through the very top of his school into almost the base of the spine and hit one that entered the front of his hip and exited out the back so the people who committed it the inference from testimony also was that the defendant was drawn to the driver side of the vehicle and that's where the strong suit over the well in two shots were fired at that point and this is  passenger door there is no way all three shots could have been fired from the driver's side of the window for the victim to end the point that if the last shot fatal shot entered the top of his head  suggest that one injury alone is typical but that doesn't necessarily prove that it still works for the best scenario sure sure i suppose it could be a case where three shots were fired during th but that's a perfectly logical scenario i think that much more likely than shooting from both sides of the vehicle you know one side on the driver side shooting him who shot from the passenger