MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
interpretations of what it means so the fact that the three of us the documents and attorneys case has to go back for further determination filed and they agreed that if the if the affirmative defense was denied the court procedure or just mr sanders appeared after that had already taken place and had a different theory of the case but it doesn't version of the instant workers who were involved in this case in two thousand and thirteen and that documents is attached as an appendix to my brief it specifically refers to
at under rule under section three hundred six of the current unity act it removes the liability of a public entity when the liability is based on the existence of any public property intended were permitted to be used for recreational purposes including but not limited to parks playgrounds open areas buildings or other clothes for relational sillies the purpose of the act is to encourage or promote the development and maintenance of parks playgrounds and recreation in the summer months didn't occur during the school year it didn't occur during our football something like that this field is use only for the ball discus and shot the practices and it was never intended for the school play suggests an opposition to work it implies an activity in strenuous but an absence of a name other than these men diversion or enjoyment so here are the plaintiff was participating in a summer extra curricular football and certainly could be said to be a refreshment of strength and spirit after toil in this case the plaintiffs simply ask the court to uphold the high school football and track our educational activities even though he includes no illinois support for recreational purposes for use as a playground there the supreme court said that the school intended the use of the sidewalk partly for recreational intent but the little four square lines were suggestive  dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint before there had been any depositions taken in this case so based on the pleadings themselves the allegations that the plant had been instructed to encounter a hazard t told to run there has been no evidence the bocage is knew or should have known about the bumper being obscured in the weeds and there is evidence that plaintiff while running to the practice field stated that he was involved in a conversation that he was looking down and he was adjusting his chin strap there was a lot of things going on while he was writing so the allegations remain unsupported the other case manual v left events took place in that space we used our time for cafeteria part time as an auditorium of importance the court noted that there was also a gymnasium on site at the school where
implied or contract the terms must be so clear and unambiguous that it can leave no doubt as to its terms and mere statements of intentions and things of that nature are not sufficient and the there's no evidence as to when this implied oral contract was accepted there is no evidence as to what the exact terms of the supply oral contract were some of the plaintiffs testified that the proceeds had stated that the plaintiff was going to get witnesses that i'm talking about right now the pla past six or seven years additionally the evidence that was submitted to the core was that she was also receiving benefits that izzy paid for some of the bills took her on trips for her children off the trips took them out to eat and things of that nature so she was receiving some compensation which had to leave them to the next element that the plaintiff was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that this situation cannot reasonably harmonize with any other theory and i think it's of things isn't enough again we have to look back at those clear explicit convincing certain definite and i think the court just concluded that it must have been before these alleged statements from the witnesses but again that again goes to uncertainty unclear ambiguous terms harper i think one of the most important things to look at is where the promise is uncertain is uncertain instrument invaders no agreement can be forced in this case the promise is completely uncertain there's no compensation  again there was no decision o course because the birth of plaintiff in the law is very clear clear explicit certain definite consistent unambiguous and unequivocal terms these terms that the evidence presented by going to were none of those things again and that is right all contradict one another and that's why the court has to accept the evidence with caution and use the most strict scrutiny and the reason that you think about why we have such strict scrutiny is because we have these rules when you're creating a will there are certain rules about it being a right to an interest of witnesses and things of that nature that's why we have these rules and we're not using them we have to file strict scrutiny and in this case the bird being on a plane and the bird was not met by proving all these requirements by clear and convincing also contradictory evidence that there was no change in the services the planning provided going back six to seven years within their complaint they left as happened in march of two thousand and eleven a little over a year prior to the deceives passing so the same services being provided  the last six or seven years would show there's no change circumstances all the places where the witnesses testified that yes vital services but could not testify to any distinct differences of services you provide throughout the entire time period
same as for the hostile working environment playing the lengthy falso not only describe the comments made and the and the fact that the same work continues but also submitted evidence with regards to alleges on her and the general statement that any worker would react similarly but what i didn't see in the brief was any analysis about the comments themselves in what was wouldn't you have had a lot of ation to bring those facts out at that time the thing your honor is that since i don't know how the the question was whether the common should have been holmes in this case that there were bearable comments then with that with that reply i will understand that his lawyer has no obligation to believe that times but that seems to me to be a pretty high standard and perhaps not fair when we're talking about employees who don't necessarily log books and are watching the clock to write down all of these things if you know if it's somebody who's trying to invent a cause of action maybe so regular employees i don't know why we would require that kind of detail your honor the only thing that with one of these fellow workers some some word she never specify one and that they told her one or two of them told her that they earn in that position eight hundred dollars
opportunity to discard money as a firm no way about it by video as you point out the defendants in the video throwing something in the trash every ten seconds before he's approached by the police did argue that a fan had every opportunity to discard the money at any time in the tween the time that could send left to train station and the time that the police officers searched him and the group found on the line there was no money in fact th the video that they've been searching for money at that time they were searching for something larger they picked up by their contacts and it's easy to see how something as small as a twenty dollar bill could have gotten could have fallen into the bottom of that trash can how much pressure is on the video corroborated everything the victim had to say and finding that there was no gun in the trial court even mentioned that throughout the entire three clips of the video defendant is rocking behind the victim and so the victim can't say what happened to that gun but it is clear noticed in front of defendant on the platform and then as they were walking up the ramp the victim testified that he was frustrated and angry and wanted to get the whole situation over with and dropped about five feet high of him but he wouldn't say walked away no this was not when they were victim after the dengate defended the twenty dollars and felt that he was free to walk away because defendant had what he wanted the victim did that walk away and he rocked the train station but the victim testified and one of the officers testified that the victim actually ran once he was out of the train station and were smoking cigarettes with it to testify at trial that at the time the defendant saw the pack of cigarettes in his backpack and asked for one and the victim testified that he was trying to attorney argued all of the same arguments on his motion for defining his closing argument and in his the trial motions and the trial court still found the victim credible and the standard of review does not permit defendant a second credibility of discrimination on that the pretrial discussion is for preparation witness that there were changes in their testimony in the testimony of the victim to this people's  without the turnstile he had he never took his stereo away from the door ensuring that the victim couldn't run away without giving him the money the victim also testified as he tried to and as he left the train station he watched the defendant through the reflection of the doors watching not exist the trial was found that in light of all of the evidence not just a victim's testimony and the people did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt but that does not mean that the trial court found the victim's testimony that the defendant had a gun incredible that not believing that testimony but also that it could find that there was some kind of threat from a guy say to just simply untrue the fact is that you know this is not a case where you know he had his head in his pocket or some kind of device you don't know whether you know it did they proved it to
operating from a secret mountain headquarters on the planet earth captain video rallies men of goodwill and lays them against the forces of evil everywhere as he rockets from planet to planet let us follow the champion of justice truth impossible situation going on at the circus right now to let's run over and watch our friends as they clear it up letter planetary mail service is practical and can be you either rangers rogers well because of cosmic affairs rangers i have been able to get through to the galaxy but you know she was supposed to land here a long time ago and well rangers i don't have to tell you were my concerns about her but he didn't say anything about the  new range is no good combination is sometimes hard to get but it's muddy plus whether it's a combination of colors or combination of flavors and idea range is just make sure you get put america's favorite raisin bread and some of the famous triple wrapped cereal guaranteed fresh or triple your money back american child has the right to education american children are very fortunate in this respect because this condition is far worldwide and in some countries there is no public school system other countries school system is in effect  proud and thankful that learning is considered a basic right in the united states but having such a complete and well set up educational system is a responsibility to their your schools and only as good as you make yes it's up to you the citizens was written by george the third your announcer is fred's guy
said he would and he came out and you said it's ok i didn't have anything else i was doing i have to help you out are you are you indicating that during the time he was at the violated fourth amendment rights if we feel that what was there in the statement and the discussions he held with the police officers at the agana precinct which was already given to them and merely repeated
extreme actions that a court may take such action should not be likely to or likely condone or merely to manage the courts in a default judgment is condoned only as a last resort necessary to give of most and had been sent to the defendant the supreme court held that where the authority of the court is governed by statute for the court to act with it's already it must proceed with the confines of that law and that are the court and the plaintiffs have failed to follow the rules that cover the law of mortgage foreclosure and the rules that govern civil procedure in illinois proper notices have not been given in the feeding from january thirteenth was february and february fourteenth was a status court date at that time the judge upon front realizing that no pleading had been f document was mailed on the day that the defendant claims and the defendant further does not even address the supreme court of three seven three or the harrisburg case in either of a breeze her in her brief off four of them she fell because there is not evidence that any of those issues were in fact there was never any every day that a case is continue they have to pay additional interest additional insurance how can there be no prejudice to the bank when someone has for a continuance many times over and over again past the date that they are supposed to
to answer your question earlier
spanish government has the burden of proving how well the officer can actually ask the question may i come in the government didn't do so sometimes the full question should be very simple question and for that reason will be very simple for the government to carry i because that i'm just trying to get you right to what's bothering me i want to give you a chance to change my mind it seems to me that he gets around the warnings sure if if they you know kept him for three monster maybe even because he wasn't i would argue that he is doing is the motel room and three officers are there to greet him and he has nowhere else to go where is he supposed to go but let's turn to the twenty seventh and the question of whether or not the warning that was given on the twenty six case in which fifteen hours of last between the first morning and the second interrogation and imagines the defendant was reminded of the earlier warning the kind that there was no deep back in the earlier warning and we do claim because then you have to apply reasonable this test whether or not the delayed warning could be effective if you get into the mind of the questioning officer if you are in a white house and you're never going to get anywhere as it's about where we are
days of the order violating that provision also violate us the provision of rescued off the defendants have offered no explanation or reason for not saying these any earlier they presented no evidence of any particular due
if the petition to revoke is filed before the petition to adopt the petition to revoke shall be granted but it doesn't say what happens if it's more than a year and the petition to adopt is filed it shall be granted current mandatory prayer and mean does that imply that if it's not filed before the petition to adopt but it's been more than a year the court it's a discretionary matter it's not
disagree with it i think that there was a final decision in this case and in our research we've given you a couple different pieces but the name thing i'd like you to look at is the actual administrative review along which just has a definition of what an administrative  occupation of his choosing which is to become a firefighter within the district and if you look at the first definition of the american college dictionary which we signed on page twenty two of our initial br to the actual question at hand did this trick only has the powers that is granted to it to the section by which it's exists on this statute that we are looking at here is the fire protection district act industry acts that's a mouthful if they are in the food you shouldn't be able to utilize both and that's what we have here we've got the fire protection district act which tells you they believe the list is valid for two years list is the one that is expires in two years so what is the ballot for two years and then after the two years if you still have names that are left on the list you can strike those off and you start from the beginning you start from scratch to carry out the purposes of section sixteen point zero one through sixteen point eight hundred sixteen point zero one is the section that made me give them the ability to gra eligibility list now section two point zero nine which just talks about the final eligibility list doesn't have to it's words what it says is this list is going to have shall remain for chile hears that's what it sa was a final decision we believe that the administrative agency here in the district did have a final decision when it's decided it's opposed to second final eligibility list after already posting the first final here today florida it is our position that the court by not getting to the subject of matter whether the conduct of the dish it was appropriate it is there or not probably before you today so what i would like to do is focus on no but that is in the record so if you look at the court's decision to dismiss the administrative review count you'll find that it was probably because the court found that there was not a final decision or final action by the board in that the courts have held that normally doesn't negate the fact that the district didn't follow the statute what we're asking the court to do is this time whether or not this district had the power within the statute and the statute to do what it did did it follow the statutory authority and we don't believe we don't believe that they did and whether or not mr to make tested and was hoping that he was going to get a better score it doesn't make a difference of what makes a difference as they went against a statute they did something that what the final outcome was going to be he only knew that final outcome when that second eligibility list was posted that's when he knew it was dead that's what they were going to intend to do was to use that list and that's when the thirty five day rules start
counseling ask you this when they were confronting witnesses with the prior inconsistent statements did they elicit statements literally from a transcript of the prior proceedings by asking me previously testified wasn't this question asked was this your response and they actually outlined the actual prior testimony ok and then also here the transcripts were written it is the transcripts from these prior proceedings where the prior statements were recorded transcribed by a court reporter those were admitted right and i don't quite understand because you said to several cases in talk about the fact that those cases were upheld because the transcript was not given to the juries in the jury didn't get certain statements that they shouldn't have received or shouldn't read so which isn't are you saying that the transcript should have been published to the jury or you know i think the prior testimony it's just that the transcription of been published to the jury that's the problem is is that right and of course with the police report it's not something where witnesses question under oath it's not something that is transcribed in real time as they are giving that sworn testimony correct and with the transcript the specific questions asked review the actual questions and gave the actual testimony that was given  so presuming the statements form that's not satisfied by confronting the witness with the exact statement in response that they gave under oath that doesn't satisfy that so it's not the same trial or required in order to cause a sense of problems and i understand that you know you have new case law that came out after the trial proceeds sincere but was the trial or required under existing case law to well how can they be presumed with him and not see them i think he did it an so you're suggesting the council would have been ok with publishing by passing around the transcripts while they were still in the jury box before they retired for deliberation just as long as the transcripts didn't go back to the jur i don't see any of the time that you would take this matter under advisement and be in recess until the next
jury instructed correctly on the definition of constructive possession and wouldn't that have been sufficient to cure any defect in the limiting instruction no because  session to prove that she intended to exert control over their cocaine on september twenty fourth so serve the same wasn't there that didn't want to her guilt i mean the defendant was seeing the pair briefly outside the house she admitted she knew that mallory was purchasing drugs on the drug i'm sorry the glove compartment was seen open she saw him open and then shut the glove compartment certainly allowing the inference that she knew that there were drugs in  that they were to use it for possession because the detectives were standing right next to my car meanwhile all the detectives say is that officer jack when you did the initial stop and didn't come over to listen to him struggling with mallory which would be supposedly after  or because of the over you know overstepping the bounds and move bolstering credibility so why should we find the credibility was in the poor prosecutor so it was important enough that type and burn on so it's not like we're only relying on testimony of witnesses in this case and of course you have the other kinds of evidence which is the main
because in general three villages only clean such systems triage whereas here he also claimed the right to fish commercially however in both cases the villages simply cla suppose congress of course could completely wipe out all these average human race tomorrow yes john but what you're saying is well our case in the requires that the aboriginal subsistence rights of the village statute from interfering with them or littering but it seems to me you still have to win on your first proposition but i think that's right yarn clauses is that they were intended to preserve rights with federal paramount would otherwise have preclude large scale commercial
denied by the circuit court and then was later from by this court denying that same relief following that the corporation in question here was dissolved by the parties and each form their own separate medical practices during the course  i was actually employed by that from representing the plaintiff at the time the associate covering the case was told this by the court i was there on the fourth i was not there on the sixth we did i was not there on the thirteenth the associate covering the case for this f and the motion to dismiss it we would have addressed some sense of the motion without any arguments to the contrary there's nothing to contradict anything that is something that is my knowledge you know facts you know when we look at this thing it's for the use of discretion we have to say that no judge would do that you know i don't know that we could say that this case will give us anything that  i think that the issues here were respectfully as we were never really given an opportunity to explain how they were different the motion was struck it was struck a second time then before it was even tween in that time period there was no response found i'm unfortunately the ruling dated already been sent and the court ruled without the benefit of the response which i believe if we had f is the first suit still pending yes and it was dismissed as to one party with prejudice dismissed without as to what another party and its been refiled while all this was happening so used to opportunity just very briefly i'm just going to address the issues of if somebody was there on the fourth i recall that there was an order pre prepared by the court when we got there on the fourth so the court on tuesday that there was approved the court prepare an extension of time so we have no benefit of having a written record of how that order got entered by the court i know for a fact at least on the fourth i was there on the sixth i know it associate went period of time and you know this is one of the last things justice like to hear but this this was not my case at the time i was working on it so i'm not entirely certain that the mechanic