MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
not the situation that a court was confronted with in this case and section far was situated to direct accord to review the circumstances of this case in this case let's take it as a given that these claims were traded for elimination of the however however the objection raised to damages being can amount to the value of a crime the objection raised in this case was that oh well they were going to crimes that would have prevented a mon a as the debtor but included government claims include private plaintiffs claim all of those claims were patched packaged together and they were released in exchange for one hundred and ten million dollars there's no evidence in the record that claims because of several different reasons including the fact that there are significant comment counterclaims hundreds of millions of dollars to come or counterclaims and those in the findings of the bankruptcy court better suited to a clearer view so we have the settlement and how it was set up and i think just looking at the claims of self i think it's it's really common sense that net economic damage is not the same as the value of a claim for example we are here today and one of the issues is whether or not as a matter of all these questions exist these claims exist did emma may have a contract or regulatory or statutory claims against the sugar that's one of the issues on appeal the very fact that this is appealed and that issue is going to the  circuit tells me there's some problems with those claims the collateral may not even exist in the st place there has to diminish the value of those claims the something other than economic damages i don't know what the number is it wasn't are any legal issues that need to be resolved here the biggest hurdle clearly there are to the purpose and use of the car that was the release in the global exchange and then try to determine what was the value of the clitoral as it was used  paid one hundred and ten million dollars to settle claims arising from the development one hundred and ten million dollars is significantly greater obviously than even the ten million dollars here and just briefly moving on to the legal issue which i think we need to get to liability down the road the shipper didn't do that now had the shipper done that that limitation would have been binding on connecting carriers it's probably based on the same exact reasons discussed in ward and whether would think found again based on the evidence in front of it that the tariffs were not encouraged those are all factual findings from the bankruptcy court now certainly there are legal issues that overlay with it but i think it's absurd if you come on as we talk about
remedy if they had any relief available to them if they were students for example they did not they were not employees do you think that's a distinction that is significant here that it appears in this you know as an employee of the university had agreed with you on nothing that we can but look for the sake of argument i guess i can't speak for the rest panel obviously we agree with you that your client has a claim under title nine but we find that  spirit then it is of all employee talk so i'm going to just remind you that you're at seven and a half minutes now so if you want to reserve time you can you can if you're going to continue you can as well then i want to  cases yes the ana i was thinking about was even if true showing some kind of discrimination what evidence was there of any pretexts after the unit be put forth some legitimate nondiscriminatory reason yeah university decision which is answer complain about the possible discrimination because i'll be he's a sexual orientation in all pobre two thousand and fifteen they'll fall right you've used up your fifteen minutes and did warn you in advance and i did remind you at the eight minute mark that you would want to reserve time that you were over so we need to stop now and hear miss  defendants even knew of mr winds sexual orientation and it is there is you go cite case law on that issue but if they didn't even though it becomes a little more difficult it seems to establish that they were there's no evidence the record of the sexual orientation that was in the vehicle which if we're looking at it from karen or why one person didn't think either we're not just looking at whether somebody is outside of the protected class both theories at the same time that there really isn't preemption and happen most of the circuits ruled that way aggressors i believe his draft letter that mentions his sexual orientation but that he that wasn't in his final letter had a draft that's about that that means the the regents should have known it should have taken an investigation so i mean it's an issue of actual knowledge and imputed knowledge if yes it's undisputed he showed his department head in another friend professor a letter a draft letter that included that affirmation mean that
in not doing that that's not a limitation necessarily you are saying to us that because there are three categories mention that that it well if you look at it and you look at the background of do fall back on your consent or even that there are two responses and then i will try to get back to judge sauls original question on the merits as to why these are the type of worship and
gave the prosecutor stood up at the beginning of trial and asks the court to admit this document is out and supported it and then during closing argument as i'll argue later the prosecutor balanced and writing and the prosecutor again and started facts not in record as i mentioned earlier also based on the nature of evidence before the jury especially the docket sheet with those large white boxes as well as the plea agreement that was someone who's going to be wanted is not have supervised release and well but given that he made very clear on the record you know he may not have have said you know dotted i's and cross the t s by saying i'm i'm going to depart from the normal rule but there shouldn't be supervised release you know for these reasons but he made clear that it was for deterrent she warned him you come back you're getting an extra years of don't come back i sufficiency if you have an interview is not in the business of entertaining what the court calls speculative possibilities or imagine if it musings so once the government has put it has it is that permits a straightforward inference of a extraordinarily irrational and here were actually i am not
can't turn back the clock
streams act says no owner
medical devices  theory unless you establish that the f d a actually relied on what you point to is the misrepresentation in the sense that but for that medically appropriate products that balance the risk and yet the product would have to be taken off the market because six jurors disagreed with the f d a that that's the scenario that i don't see how you get around regulation specifically saying that you need to survive a physician and the hospital need to survive through the medical necessity and if they do and that's proven to be bent certification is proven to be caused by illegal them well judge i think they do no i don't think i would say ok then if that's not a false claim don't we need to know whether that person was in fact trained by someone else or not and used it with a great degree of precision since that's not a false claim but the other ones are i'm not determine that it has no problem what was was said with it and it's thinks this is an important drug to be on the market and therefore it takes no action to remove it could disagree with the f d a scientists and effectively remove a product from the commerce and united states and i don't see the government has advocating for that because i've read your brief is very carefully saying that the f d a humus forward actually relied on
now it's very clear that there's agreement on a couple of points between myself and my colleague mr sherman's there was no final judgment answered after the order was vacated by judge matsch and all five of the motions that were filed in this case were filed within the thirty days it's our position that it judgment entered in the absence of the necessary party is void and of where judgment can be attacked either directly under thirteen zero one or collaterally under working on one or even by the courts who was found today if the court learns that a judgment it has entered is void now the heller case which we cited from the supreme court makes it clear that when you're dealing with post judgment motions and it turned out that there had not been a final judgment at all and or so really what they were seeking to do was they kate the judgment of vacate an order based under thirteen no one in court said you have to look at the substance in this fifty four of the insurance code which sets out the standard for work resending coverage either based on intentional misrepresentation or material misrepresentation that section of the code doesn't say howell the insurance company should caption its complaint seeking that way it doesn't say you have to call this a complaint for reset it or you have to quote as a complaint for declaratory judgment and the cases use the terms misrepresentations on one fifty four the first district case that we cited a lot a y a a l a again called a declaratory judgment but based on failure to disclose information that was material to the rest chooses to put on point there was no case that has been cited by any of the parties in this case including pekin in which a court has held that injured twelve claimants who give notice to the insurance pointed out screws of them which stand for the proposition that the beneficiary of a lie billy surance policy is an injured person has a rights under the policy which best at the time of the or criminals and the years ago in the southern case which was an auto case is that how the insurance company chooses the caption the complaint then is rescission vs declaratory judgment jurisdiction and if you find that there is jurisdiction we would ask that you affirm judge max decision to allow us to intervene to vacate the february fourteenth judgment and have this matter for the merits which decision was manifestly correct i  no trial it was clearly a photo no one motion because there had been a final judgment on february fourteenth but our motions to set aside and altering men that judgment were filed within thirty days and that
ok well i think your argument would be that the certificate of impairment allows us to address the issue that we have presented before us in spite of the fact that there is a motion pending in front of the trial determine whether that evidence could come in and then the judge after he hears the facts of the case has indicated a willingness to want the other part of that motion in that which you see the reserve ruling because messages that he would consider those text messages communications to or about a person right and though that is the way which is the supreme court says you must be certain from the statute in order for the
duty to repel his duty would be to maintain a confidence that his wife would reasonably expect him to know taint it but she couldn't reasonably expect him to maintain a confidence advisor confidential advisor regardless of whether the client may be disclose that information doesn't the professional still have the obligation not to further use it  patheticly do you think the rule would apply the same worse he a true professional confidential advisor by not less he was a confidential refreshment to the company that had the right to the confidence of both the advisor and the
he might have what looked like a weapon further every witness was almost a hundred feet from behind the scene they were hiding the bridge raiders and looking at this through the lives of hearing gunshots certainly in the state failed to show that mr person money that they were the fam was not credible to determine that he distorts the weapon would have all been the same testimony that the state relied on to show you because that's the weapon and without his testimony the still state cannot prove that mr moore shirt and that he saw a revolver and a cylinder the people explained why there were no bullets were or were impact point spam from that the firing of a wo parts unknown and would not have been discovered or it could have disintegrated so the lack of impact points from the gun that the defendant fired was explained and it was claimed in a reasonable manner  most favorable to the senate you might find that she couldn't see but there was testimony by the inspector that from the point that augusta williams was asking at her house when she had come out from behind the refrigerator she could see because her property was on a slight elevation and she could have seen someone by the brick wall destroyed you know where the jury apparently decided to credit krystal riley candace was approaching she was probably the defendant's brother of the street because she wanted to see what kind of rumble was going to go on and then she and then when the gun gets pulled out she panicked she but she regretted it and she explained that she ran toward the defendant and passed him when he when he took the gun out because she thought at that point no matter which way she ran she would have been a target so she not scrupulously honored and he doesn't claim that he he you know he was course into making the statements that he made later if there's no there's no problem with that so we're really lies the both ways you can't say he was prejudiced because they talked about his right to remain silent and how they scrupulously honor that and then turn around and then follow the police for not talking to him when he was wanted to tell them about the cap on it not coming to talk to him after he you know when that was an act his explanation for by he did not the mission of initially mention the fact that he had been kept as opposed to a real gun the fact that the determined that would have shown up for if he had fired on there was no evidence in the record on that at all either your honor further this state trying to explain the fact that mr moore fired one of the four times and there was such money to be fired in the that he fire at change oil and if you look at the pictures in the record you can see that this was in front of the home it was a very densely populated area with all you know lots of objects in the way and have fire or times with a group of more than roughly ten people standing there in front of a house and hit absolutely nothing further asked the state asserts that simply because mr moore later s
i'm gonna ask if you would close the doors in the rear
it one case michigan consolidated gas company in the case against the local private distribution company of delaware whose name i forget let me just back up for a second there's a there's one called an as applied yes miss actually there can be brought in there's no way to cross rate that's right that's what i don't understand about your loss of how could it be that we could read the federal statute to on the one hand require there to be any rate in place in order for you to bring scheme set up by congress in order to enforce against a private party in the state court action as applied now would they then have an obligation to predicate for that is that there is a rate that they have to comply with where it doesn't if it does kind of think there being a raid in place i don't see how the other party has done anything that you can see for because there's no rate that they're not complying with the reason for is an effective way for the absence there was a period of time in which impeded he was acting unlawfully because it had a mistaken understanding of what the grade should be and as i understand it they're saying there's got to be some mechanism maybe they're wrong about this got to be some mechanism under this team where when a state is acting unlawfully in establishing the rape once that's found out it's become clear that they were there should be some it would be the states that have the primary duty to implement the act in particular making determinations as to avoid cause and these are general regulatory determinations that every sort of state agency makes in the course of regulated utility and  fundamental fundamentally a logical one fear that the utility would be responsible somehow for damages because the state regulations were a mental utility doesn't step the regulations the state of the utility to a legal position  of green is written in a way in which you could frame it as i'm not trying to enforce the rate not yet in place because that would be crazy i'm instead trying to get damages for the same rate that was in place that lot that's water over the bridge and all this team is trying to do is make sure that ultimately the right way get some place and once it's in place then there's an obligation of people subject to the raid to make available at that i'm not sure if the projects that issued the outcome want to sell l d l put a degree but he never developed i think i could speak better to that but given that there is no structure in place for national grid to purchase the output of the u s it would been possible for a company like alco to strike a deal though they'd have to be striking a deal of terms that they thought turns out correctly or disadvantages to them because of what federal law to require the rate to be now
real estate located in the city of cake ke kitchen every night when they flip on the like it then complains too much to the landlord what do you think they get moved yet so this is a very protective way for the tenant just think the city
substitute as amended is agreed to
since the beginning of time and the first major turning point in the history of the civilized world was major turning point in the history of the civilized world what do you mean luck the first time in history europe was united in the two camps the great roman gothic job of it they certainly say from the downfall of the roman empire he defeated the romans know the romans one what are you so concerned about high risk going back into time over fifteen hundred oh boy it's no good for the models passport and titled you to travel an accredited spaceship to any planet in our solar system it also contains my official signature and photograph as well as regulations for space travel and procedure for rocket ship blast  just send your name and address to me captain the row in turn of the station your letter will be forwarded to my laboratory by guided missiles and i will immediately send you your official space passport and identification cards so till we meet again
cervical condition and that's because the petitioner it's been treated and probably two years made no complaints lumbar hurts are a pain all he who seems fine surgeons while he was seeing pain doctors and he says that or ned to be true for the current condition of neck complaints that he has a two thousand and ten on the plains he would expect the pain in the neck to be systems from the data back sent until the two thousand and one that there were armed symptoms in two thousand and two thousand and yes there was some limited treatment right at the accident they were limited to some physical therapy and i think it was like eight weeks of physical therapy that he had and then he was done so that's the that his testimony i don't think that that's necessarily true he said and even taking into consideration that there was a brush here with symptoms from that  stabbed by an arrow i'm probably going to go to the doctor and talk about the portion i'm feeling the greatest pain and probably not about my cold or flu until that pain is remedied i think that's what happened here but i also disagree with counsel in this particular case  been brought up both by dr per by and also dr wilkie dr will be stated there doctor that it's not unusual for a playmate to be focused on one particular area of an injury when they have to back a probe binds in fact testify that it can get to his and second that it was brought up as part of the ridiculous but he had told my client will deal with that later and i think this quote was just which placed on the back burner my client testified during the trial that his pain a primary focus you don't want to work on two areas of the spine the same time so obviously the neck was put on the back burner which was also put in my wife's mind in addition to the pain he was having with regard to the lumbar area but despite that there are records  saying that my client sustained some sort of server going tree i think that clearly the holes leading up to today got it right and i don't think today that there's anything with regard to my client's injury that
very right and so she denies the motion based brought by mr augustus and her and then almost like dicta says and by the way whether it's valid or not is not before me it's not my i'm not nonetheless but isn't that inherent in their obligation to their client which is generally the buyer of their property to say all right there's a lien on this property it's got to be resolved and in looking beyond the
appreciate the sold out crowd this is awesome so give yourself yes they didn't raise enough money but they're still working on it they're in an interesting situation because they don't ever be forced even if they had decided we're not going to do this field you we're not going to purchase the land we don't want to they would still be because it's just too entrenched but but they're they're offered in more or less the same as they were before complex but the foundation of it is the fact that they don't own the property and the fact that they don't own the property means that nobody can ever really go for house and you can't get a lot so those things start to create a sort of a situation where for example you have to build things very differently because you only got the little money that time and so that affects the study some things it also affects the mistakes like you know and our society we could build something massive that cost billions of dollars like a tunnel through the middle of the  the filmmaker who was there shooting absolutely everything that's where we go along with violence but the community it was interesting the first time we went there we had to we had to prove ourselves and eventually people recognize this and i saw us working every day and i'm filming it so they they they appreciated that and so they became very much more at peace with us being there but we had to do that every time we went back we were there four times and every time  with it there's moves within parts of the government to try to you know laws down of us their butts in the meantime you know and it's kind of a serious a like they don't always government for the electricity and  a boy reached manhood the military because come in and reach take them out and send them anywhere in the world i mean what what we're made for adults that's going to be like its own festival so keep an eye out for that into the
that this court should rely on can we rely on the fact that the officers report says that he's got somebody who's obviously believing and walking around who we can take that into account that here's a man who needs medical attention is taken by an ambulance to the hospital we know he's going to get treatment and the reason i'm asking the question is because insurer of the court seems to make an inference that where they say the arresting
were delegated down to