MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
of the evidence and no rational trier of fact could have agreed with the commission's findings i ask you to turn your attention to the last time you experienced pain that you may have categorized as an eight or nine out of ten and to my house if you are lucky enough to have never experienced that little thing to maybe just remember the last time that you stuck your toe to what was the expression on her face and didn't make any noise and did you grab your foot or at least try to grab your foot i think it was reasonable for the commission to place more weight on the objective medical evidence especially in light of the claimants kind of the worst commissioning records are not supported by any of the objective possible so i don't know why you even filed the cross appeal other than the fact that you generated extra briefing for both parties when you did it oh the if you would you're saying here i think i over what the commission did because they rejected your son's opinions using as another basis shouldn't do that i don't think you can cross appeal from home and i really don't think that  someone's treaty physician becomes an edwards witness merely because they met with their own patients lawyer oh i don't think there's a case that stands for a is not an adverse witness and he's not a person for whose immediate benefit the action is prosecuted you suggest that merely because the commission is going toward a medical bills it's somehow odd that makes him
board judge gould's question i asked what he characterized as a science fiction question of the case actually presents a question of fiction and fantasy as an segregated life expectancy tables to calculate certain retirement benefits mandates in perpetuity that all or again public employees receive title seven of the civil rights act this is not permissible dr solomon rules that the plaintiffs were right that the use of sex segregated life expectancy tables was a violation of title seven and in appellants world manhart also created a right to the purpose system of retroactive benefits even though it was no claim for retroactive benefits even though these plaintiffs could make no claim or retroactive benefits even though these plaintiffs sued in their own capacity and not on behalf of any purported less well man hard itself recognized that it made a sea change in the law and what the court said in mannheim is manhart excuse me there can be no doubt that the prohibition against sex differentiated employee decision said without qualifying the course of the albermarle resumption in favor retroactively we conclude that it was error to grant such writ in this case so on the basis of manhart buy her anything the to judge solomon answer was perspective looking requiring the equalization of life expectancy tables to take into account current experience and adjust the refund and the tables to take into account the changes in life expectancies and any changes in assumed interest for you to do you could have done it the next day under oregon law to maintain the after a c actuarial equivalency factors at the equivalency of different benefits what he did take away was any discretion in the  looking at page forty five of the transcript judge mohsen and says i mean the insult to our craft that some people might be surprised that it takes this much work to determine the meaning of about twenty words and at the very at the hearing he says i have attempted to do judge solomon event and then he goes on but if someone wants a modification make a motion not to engage in gender discrimination in the refund annuity retirement allowance and that that's what it does that there is language referencing the date on which that a word or to match up the  no discrimination based on gender and then three months later the same lawyers representing the same people they change a couple of people but it's the same two lea and that he said were going on the same arguments and the same evidence and it's just three months later you can safely infer what his reasoning was but i agree with you as an appellate standing up for what i'd much rather that he had articulated what i think clearly was in his mind and what i think this court can very safely in for was in his mind yes i absolutely would have would prefer that and once the remedial requirements of the decree were satisfied the decree could be modified and market cation might be appropriate certainly at this juncture but the rep mark cation should not be retroactive the benefits from nine hundred seventy five ford where it was not a class action
i was ok very clear that
to reserve two minutes for a bottle you cannot see the clock the clock will run in the courtroom as we approach approximately two minutes left if you are all morning and with that you may proce that i will try to be very brief this morning under the circumstances and that i i will rely on my written briefs except for two very specific points in the st one is that defendant who pays the judgment loses standing to pursue an appeal it's not a question of punishment and that's essentially  calculation by the district court of the rate at which my time was billed and should should have been billed by way of very brief background  point for these very same cases for which i took over after i was no longer with epstein becker and green has done the same thing clients ate at a rate of four hundred and fifty dollars an hour for my work my agreement was rejected after after i sued his client's green and was rejected they said that i am limited and and the district court agreed that i am limited to  determine the correct amount for a quantum that road to recovery and the district court however appears to have recognized all those cases and recognized all those factors but only based the finding that two hundred and seventy five dollars an hour was the proper amount based only on the fact that little voices were issued by my firm after you were willing to work for a number of years up to seventy five an hour why was it on reasonable or an abuse of discretion for the judge to say that's a reasonable amount that's a reasonable st of all because it was contrary to obligations under that contract and to award you more than what you would be a windfall to you again on on review of whether the district judge abused its discretion how could we find understand that but the reason quantum arrow it had to be the basis for recovery was because you had not fully performed the contract and so the view was that you shouldn't be getting more by not fully hour my point being that if we're going to see whether the one set of evidence or the other set of evidence should be more valid i think more weight has to be given to the estimation of the value of my work that there was a judgment mr go thing says there was a judgment and we baited the case law does not consider that compulsion to pay the judgment so that defense is is not is not viable here as far as the standing is becker and green is a large firm we have litigated that and the fact is that all the cases enumerate the fact those to be considered in coming up with a quantum metal it rate and the fact that the back or has the resources those other resources are paid separately they're not paid by part of what the what the attorneys time is billed and that's also one of the
aggravated criminal sexual abuse specifically if you're invalid on june first two thousand and seven the defendant who is then twenty years old had sex with the complainant who was younger than seventeen specifically she was fifteen testifying on each side in addition there was only one disputed issue for the jury to decide on in this case because the defense basically created their friend you have sex with the complainant in going to their respective agents that would seventeen or older so that was the only you should jury have to decide here and it was was not particularly complex it came down to the credibility of the witnesses as to the communications between the judge in the reasons already stated second day of deliberations the one of the jurors were brought into the jury room various bible verses ensured those will be of the jurors in addition they had been made following the first day of deliberations one of the not raised again by the jury was not wrong off by the judge and certainly constable who through this independent legal research that was gone that night perhaps there was a storm in an effort to resolve this question which the jury tried to then both parties were in agreement that they should be deliver
for some thirteen fifteen sixteen different factors that the courts have to look at the whole two people testified on those two factors the seneschal mother and her husband again that still doesn't mean that the poor and the patricia doesn't have to meet their requirements especially at the second hearing i think the whole second hearing on the fitness he did not relationship with this natural father the natural father has not pursued it whatsoever it's time for this child to be able to identify himself as a male influences of susan and bra
been read to apply where a third party does business with the government and voluntary we discloses its records to the government unfairly just cruiser would have a cheery effect or i make it more difficult for the government to obtain records in the extra because it was consistent with the entire statutory context recently that is similar to similar to what the court is facing here but it's much stronger here because there's an entire body
particular benefit without looking at the fact that the ninety eight litigation and that you got one settlement agreement addresses every member in the system and that's really important because you need to understand  let me go back and you do a little asking for my own thoughts in regards to this and that is the fact that one sentence you try other tell us that if we reverse you get to reinstate your bad faith and punitive damages claim the trial court independently ruled in regards to those two issues and other than just one short sentence all you said is that well if we contract secondarily he would have ruled on those bad things i will tell you it's not our intention to pursue those  particular california case and this other thing is completely unrelated to that bet the compensable part whether certain things should be included in that this thing is a way to see whether same problem well and i therefore never get to the the rule that you construed exclusion narrowly against being sure that rule only exists where there is an ambiguity in the court is trying to figure out how to interpret the term where the  in regards to the breeze you're posing council steps or think three examples of where they're arguing that your interpretation is off base let's put it that way of a different claim that somehow was impacted by the settlement agreement but if you look at that complaint there's no mention of she doesn't want someone agreement in there so if there was some kind of relationship in that other case that was a very off but here it is certainly because of how the facts are set up in this case formula to determine whether or not there were excess earnings that's why you'll see for example alex allegations about reserves decisions that were made a decade before this album litigation was actually filed i mean there are some complexities there you're
refuted by the defendant if she you know if she were still alive for that she could refuse if she were still alive what can she say this doesn't need any additional discussion that should be used here yes correct however the i want to put the emphasis on the facts here in our read of the issue was whether if accidents which different then the standard which is used in something like a request for a judgment notwithstanding the burden that the standard of proof is simply that the difference yes it must be shown that it is more probable assertions which are made in the complaint as to the state of traffic at the time at a few of the state of her vehicle up to the point that the necessarily point to negligence immediately goes into a discussion of the specific facts of that case which is that it was impossible for the plaintiffs in arvada to testify as to whether the they were that she she had a clear ministry did you i think was one of them something about traffic or not she didn't know what she didn't know if the plaintiff was stopped but she didn't make she facts parents where the mechanics of the accident itself were completely different and just briefly in a dressing room and the body of evidence that was considered by the court in that case successfully litigated past the stage of summary judgment this case was not at that point i'm not arguing about a lack of evidence use a reason for overturning a summary judgment a motion that isn't what i'm
trial court judge have to indicate that's too low or are not agreeable or have to say something rather to avoid being charged as you are we communicate this to the trial judges what they should do in the future to avoid a big charge
requesting continuances on the days that this was that for jury trial took them a clue that he had a time understanding task that's simply not true the record shows that he was every people thing going to get the relief that he was requesting and that he fact that the period defended clearly stated that the only reason she was requesting this evaluation was based on the famous representations of his mental illness that the public defender never stated that she feared trial and we
months after this litigation and soon after the fins are just minutes the jurisdiction of this court we the trial court granted defense motion without addressing several issues raising regarding on it's important to know that this case again is file in november the fans were certain somber and took nearly three months to answer the complaint so the fact that no addressing waiver found and bought by of course the agreement found that the defendants didn't waive their right arbitrate and then the issue of consideration again echo that could be but it under the circumstances of this case fact that the court was silent regarding whether this agreement was valid lea supported by consideration requires reversal that's an issue that must be addressed because if if that argument's accepted
i think that's the issue that we have to overcome in this case in order to give him any kind of compensation the terrace the the trier of fact is the is the commission and the commission didn't believe i know people like your client i've done the exact same thing we do something while you're working you feel little discomfort and then later something you know goes haywire and you're like you know i wasn't doing anything when that happen relates back in this case your guy even testified that you know in the course of his job over the years there were many occasions where he felt pain and it was a pulled muscle or tweak or in on a couple days off or you know massage or whatever would wither alleviate that painting go back in the work and we'll find how do we overcome the fact that the i mean it is up to the saying happened with hearing the switch yes and that it was merely manifest that even though it may have progressed to manifestation during the activity of normal everyday life you have that i activity is what caused this what it's not a question of there's no medical evidence that says the any activity part of the issue is what do we do with the medical evidence the service of any activity can't and that simply is contrary to all the many of the medical experts now the fact that he told somebody in the hospital he happened when i was pulling up my underwear his underwear not because of but at the time in that particular case there is something in your opinion the kind of suggests they are but he gives a history oh he was simply when it happened and if you don't know you've got kitchens were all opinion lives as this can just be smoking just didn't happen any point in time i think he said
during the day where he's allowed to raise this child this time with this doctor would rather have the child go to a babysitter or a child care provider rather than spend that time when i'm with mr james where he it did not rely upon the evidence some of the biggest she had to go to work and when she had to get my putting a lot of emphasis to move to regular and regular if and i'm assuming that what does it mean if it isn't ninety regular if you work sometimes days and sometimes other the other issue of domestic violence that was brought thank you i also place to change that and i think the trial court got a little bit too late for that man who is more interested in child support than anything else this kind of financial dealing with him home as in this case the courts and found that it is in the needs of discretion to work twenty percent of the and when that child does not need that amount of income to support his needs looking that the parties rightly contribute to half of the child child's expenses but the evidence in the testimony shows that she did that mr james is paying for work out of not just the minor child
must or should be decided locally so the question about whether the good accounting is well suited for the last like industry is appropriate to the county jury and is of no interest and really  no issue regarding why jury had an interest with connection was with the county it raised questions about whether or not there would be  venues which are appropriate they need the analysis as i understand it is then to look at the forum which is chosen to decide whether it is inconvenient they have not to my view come up with a good reason why or any reasons at all why this is an inconvenient forum for them  address and there were when we were here last time we talked about those of us in and we talked about the merits of whether it was convenient or not more than we are today your  the the factors stuff were the fact of life which we sure were just because the players don't live in the chosen form doesn't mean that there is some presumption that it's inconvenient and it doesn't presumption that they have to overcome by looking at these other factors to say that to some offering measure the agricultural are actually in one form or worse is another i don't think gets to whether or not there's a public or private interest that we're not talking about cook county city or county as you all know has a significant amount of regular cultural activity and has four fo a listing but actually a demonstration of the thought process a true analysis would wo
and take evidence  under oath direct and in the court made some findings with respect to the issuance of the emergency order the it's parte order can we consider those in any way looking at whether or not we should determine that because maybe the necessary findings were made for the plenary can we look at those from the emergency order  to my next question is we know that there is specific language that tells us we are to liberally construe this statute in an effort to achieve what it's seeking to achieve protection of people oh boy the people being abused and that type of thing how does that come into play in determining if we say well the judge didn't make the necessary factual findings but were too liberally construe about the human part of the bases was that allegedly your client came very close to the petitioner with her vehicle and to the extent that allegedly one of the grandchildren  d trying to run grandma over wasn't that part of the petition well i know that there was this testimony that you know she's tried to rob ford in that was kind of shown to not necessarily be accurate but are you that there was this alleged incident in the church parking lot so you're saying that incident was not proved at the hearing there was something appropriate that happened do you lose does demonstrate that the trial court considered these things and so i guess the question becomes we know that we're too liberally construed this should we dismiss the order based on a
that only requirement is to attribute king bridges copyrights that was the only agreement mr hugh craik has never once mentioned in the agreement and he doesn't qualify as a third party but officially under control and while it was not made for his benefit it was made in fact he made a conscious choice to create a corporation to receive all the protections for the corporate entity receives appearing personal i believe things like that and in the contract the obligations are between cambridge and motor row but nothing was close personal interest and under the law it states that in fact if you're going to further a beneficiary generally the contract must make that explicitly clear and here the contract doesn't come close the only mention a few days on the signature line  objective person could read your letter as anything other than a terminations now after that fact no to the senate notice i have to terminate for cats and the reason of course is because if he terminate for cause you're not in the hook for past the amounts and so after that they sent that letter but i think the evidence is pretty clear that on august twenty ninth there was terminated for convenience now here's the thing if there was trimming for can be into august twenty ninth that means that whether or not you know when did the statue of limitations begin to run i think that is very clear it's when you have a legal right to make a claim and so we kind of get into this issue a bit about the mediation where you don't go to mediation until you have a legal right to is the code and to is a protectable under federal copyright law that was one of the reasons for the removal because copyright more tax about not just protectable right there some code you have to use the just to run the operating system so that it knows how to employer he was in charge of the project to get these two hundred lines of code in there and the other code to google so that they could put it into android android of course is an open source software that's freely made available distributed to the people for free he's suing them claiming that they stole these lines of code from him claiming that he didn't assign any of his rights to it now
two stone twenty two was used that was the first that they had also wasn't there a statement to the girlfriend about i've got a gun now now i'm going to yell them or something which so you're basically arguing that with the statement there's less of the need in balancing
this case we'll do that the supreme court case was out there former bush for a month and a good twenty eight days at the eleventh hour is also not the better practice for us  that's the most prominent reason to say it's not  n a case where detention is not be a dettori should be identical or similar to the rule we see case where it is mandatory and where we held that hearing a hearing not dangerous sort of a ruse that hearing right it's your position as i understand what you're saying this morning that i'm off later he can file a motion for bail and just because of the passage of the thirty days pretrial detention in criminal cases an existence of the speedy trial act and procedure rules that assure speedy trial in the criminal side these facts for the detainees is still the same that person determining reasonable is the fact that we require and that various states require trial within a limited period of card subject to extensions which also are
this case which is much larger not a long term basis ironically our contention is that perhaps it should have been for a longer term of the state should not have tried to unify as quickly as evil unification was done the pennsic proceedings were over it's it's not it's more complex and i think it gives rise to maggie three eighty three action because the statute does make clear the state has accepted responsibility in a dependency proceeding to