MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
increasingly common commercial context what we might call the wal mart is de sion of the market what we have here is a very large buyer having goods produced in the third world through a middleman the contract court did made no finding on whether that was constituted adequate wrongfulness the only thing it found it was we're not even going to decide whether there was anything wrong with these goods beca reasonably i guess the court found found that the batteries were not operating that was a liquid so their contract which changed the used to allow them to reject non conforming goods we argued that that was not a permissible change but the court never addressed the issue of whether under that contract provision it would still be wrongful for cosco to damage the goods and then return them i think  by the explanation of next news expert which is when you put the bunnies on and you let them run forever and you don't turn them off the batteries will run down this is not it does not take a genius to figure this out the only  sink and with an alkaline batteries and cost of course the prove the batteries and their own life had tested it before it was shipped it would not just record be when you were in the district court and after the trial contract and intentional interference so the argument you're making now is kind of it really wasn't the one i was addressing in my preparation in the  didn't make any findings because well for one reason we were knocked out on the knowledge elements right and so you can either be knocked out on any single element knowledge or wrongful means improper me principles which do you begin to have a duty to someone once you have knowledge that your actions are going to harm that person and if other kinds of facts the answer is yes less than an acre away then you may have a duty to do something about the noise in this case we were not allowed to present evidence of what what might weather goes bunnies were still in the stores by this time all of whether it was possible complicity or negligence and as took it outside of the outside of the provision in the contract that allowed them to if they merely company i'm still wondering whether even if you say well they had knowledge either indirectly of person or directly once they get the letter they have knowledge but do you  who you meet that they intentionally interfered with that they induced to breach or that they interfered for an improper purpose you'd still have to meet those two even if there was knowledge in the district court may determinations on that last point correct they didn't have to interfere for the purpose of damaging maxim or not but that they it was deficient if they knew that their actions were going to harm the matter and then the question clear contract contract rights in this case with the consent of the other contract party without stopping and considering whether that conduct will have impact on public policy matter impact on strangers to the contract manufacturers vendors producers people who are not only not privy don't share privy to the contract but oftentimes are completely unknown to the contract
the county jail he continued page county front of a judge and no one caught he could have been reset and he can be sent up to a year in jail in this case and now i don't think anybody would dispute the fact that my client would have read me at that point so how do we get from the may date unless somehow the filing their petition to revoke told the ending our kids conditional discharge it was still going on the act so long as he's challenging a conviction for which he continues to serve some form of sentence from one second per such as liberty would be directly affected by the defendants ability to continue on with his petition without being subject to the procedural or the time restraints of the court or of the public defenders actually deprived by his sentence or his conviction actually when you're looking to interpret actual death but you know deprivation they look to determine if there is a string that the state made pool to bring the that there is a difference between the claim alleged and standing and in terms of whether or not he has standing here standing is when they have no other remedy in they are trying used to enhance another sentence or to enhanced their sentence or two i used as an alibi for their conviction in another sentence all of those instances they are not serving iteration of their sentence just like this defendant if you if we were to allow this type of expansion of restraint to liberty to give you a defendant standing under the post conviction and what parameters to it there be here there  eight years between the end of the sentence and the founding of the post conviction i mean what if there were fifteen years out is there any time limit on how can somebody do it twenty years from now in with when he comes out to her str
and our contention is his job was to move bricks from one area to another area to another area which required him to cop cars one from one that was the manufacturing process so i point out that the burden of proof in this case to show that he way over the legal limit of intoxication correct home my my response to that would be is whether the evidence is clear it takes more than one person was ok it's not clear from the evidence that it takes one there is commission concluded and here's the crux of the here if you have to answer yours or purple they conclude the claim is decision to act alone with respect with thousand pound door was a serious miscalculation of judgment influenced by his question in response that would be what just spring court language says that it must appear as a matter of law i mean the facts must be so strong and overwhelming that it must be nobody's fault but no we won't whether a reasonable person can or cannot do with thing is a factual question it's not a legal question and second of all what a doctor who won't say this report said the level of alcohol that he had would create problems in vision problems with i mean the function oh i'm let's could ordination problems but most important problems with judgment and in this particular case this guy decided to do this thousand placed upon them on the respondent to make group that he was not performing his job if he's testifying that he was there and he performed his job for six and a half hours they had people there capable of testifying and he didn't perform his job he didn't move the moved from the equation you've got back there a law saying he can't do the job in the condition he's then they need any other witnesses at that point well again if you look at the standards set forth by the court the standard is or comes to a conclusion they don't come to the conclusion as america more generally they come to the conclusion because they find one set of facts more probable than the other set of facts were you when you decide summary judgment you decide those things as a matter of  of cases he can't do that he certainly can't do that towards saturday and there's a reason for each one of these people were individuals you know how alcohol may affect this guy as compared to how it may have affected alcohol level doing what's normally expected this is the position would require slipping or bladder getting out of a local water tank and things of that nature whereas here it seems statements to the effect that he was not drinking alcohol that night did not know where any alcohol come from that would have been found in one story clearly there was an issue with stationeries ferocity everett's clear that he was not being forthright and it was entirely presents the proof that the teacher was intoxicated and needs that burden at that point there would be a counter defense that defense and that would be a petition or show that is adequately performing his job is able to adequately farms job prior to the accident in spite about the burden shifting first that it's only it's only your burden to establish intoxication and that intoxication simply prostitutes and airman and then it shifts back
were represented by someone that was not a member of the bar and then herself it was you know fact saying he didn't have a lawyer period i mean not so much he didn't have a lawyer of his own choice told him that he could get an extension from the district director this is not a question of and not having any remedies available he just simply didn't pursue the administrative remedy and extension of his voluntary departure period he knew question is well i mean you have to agree with that so there's no question as i understand your argument you think they construed this differently but if it's fairly presented as a statutory violation and not of the constitutional argument then i think the board was part of the problem is that the system of military l's which immigrants seem to think that they're what they are in mexico which is higher class lawyers martinez this whole whole argument is based on the fact that none of these lawyers was his choice they were all provided to him by mr blair and he will i do this to compare and i understand what you're saying but all but my argument is that when you read this record it's this into the very last hearing in which in which the petitioner his wife talked about them having a notorious so so what i think of according to the whole basis for this petition is claim basis of him not having a lawyer of his choice because he because he can't name of what the lawyer and the lawyer he doesn't even provide records that he paid that lawyer before he came to court on for his last hear
sort of temporal separation alternative some alternative security satisfactory to it and on the assumption that it would not have this new security simply as a duplicate for the
case there are three in our view intensely disputed factual issues they are also all according to green words the three confused baker might be dissociation and don't i'm factors that would never be an issue with somebody on staff so that is not the issue the issue under initial interest confusion is where you never know the people go t you're asking u one person associates them it's whether or not where you have to go where you have much much deeper than that every any time you and i are in our industry and we hear about a company that has the same name as some other companies of course you might think of the first company that we're aware of that has that name but the question is whether or not there's all that goes it goes into whether or not there's formula whether there's a perception of  don't even think you really need to deal with the substance of their testimony even because they were all almost all family or friends or neighbors or acquaintances of the appellant and none of them was just a very narrow band of people who might be interested in the services are very excerpt very high degree of care here and they would never i can't imagine that any athlete you might be surprised and i'm not going to get with your mother but it was actually a highly acclaimed show it was the content of the show that bothered people in the n f l who i also has worked for and they are they had a problem with it but it wasn't because there's anything artistically wrong with the show anything like that and i should point out that there's no red evidence that the even the designation playmakers now means something different than it
right yeah when you go to the guidelines and other factors so tell us without getting into specific sections of why that was wrong why the court shouldn't have considered the disparity in these factors well i think is your issue on appeal is that the trial judge put the burden on your client the heisman to prove this and the deviation from i think there's no deviation rather than putting the burden of proof on her to prove that there you didn't present any because you didn't believe it was your birth is that correct and the judge didn't rule though in looking in the petitioner in this case then she remained in need of the indefinite use hopeless or a cases of the credibility of the way to be given a dozen ways up to the trial where you're telling us in your opinion you don't think she has the health issues but the judge believes she did but when you put it in different ways every person
all concerned especially for the brew and their job was only partially complete the execution of all the planning effort was now wholly in their hands later they were given a go to enter the wor environment but after the thing with the crew the decision was made to berth the the next morning with the normal flight plan the group put in a long trying day activating the work done getting things organized then in the proper place was a glory in the however they were discovering that there is not a fact and that moving big the gear presented no problem in the weightless environment by newman monday the twenty eight meanwhile at marshall in the underwater simulator techniques were being developed based on t v coverage of the solar wing using only two not equipment like those aboard guy lab the backup crew developed  the electrical power surge to almost double the previous level it meant that the power management could be abandoned and the original by plan could be resumed in the days that followed the nagging problem that had the nod from the start began to resolve the mission began to sound much more real more like a normal working day experiments were coming off like clockwork
cost and paid him in open court for reimbursement of those costs mr condit very harris has not shown any evidence of wrongdoing or collusion amongst the attorneys here something like that which is the cost but i sure approximate run six or seven thousand dollars in legal fees which the court completely disregard
of american hospital and probably also the second district he's also versus swedish american hospital but i think it's much it easier question than that  census and it has no right what the case he's citing steals for or else there's a reasonable explanation why a criminal case is different than a civil so again and again courts have said yes the whole point of a privilege is that it does bar information that could be relevant material but the privilege we will in  only know they can issue a subpoena and ask for the records and we know that because of the case law which is very clear on all of the plaintiffs not entitled to those records crash and therefore were not liable in the the trial where they actually bought it and said ok i believe it and those appellate court said no you can go back and have a trial on the solution but the court was very clear that the issue and then when you've got that the criminal charges justice wilson and justice that light now i think was was the third district judge you know how these are your people versus  political and you know it's funny thing way we know this of for the first time when we were here before your honor's because the question comes up why hasn't this come up before and my answer to be i have been doing it for years but it doesn't name the questions over come a privilege and i think in my brief i have an entire section on that there are cases where a plaintiff is said hate the supreme court rules  just because the supreme court rules say discovery is fraud just because they say we can ask it doesn't mean it's a privilege goes by the senate so there's no other question thank you very m floor is a quick good balance between public policy of protecting mental health and physical health records versus our need to know the truth of the civil litigation so one of the of the trouble of saying the one in it means you can a defendant can hide anything unless they bring it in this is this type of doctor and that's why we have trial courts that the trial courts can and we groom is that it is your issues and decide and in this case the trial court heard the evidence and decided yeah this is going to be an issue in this litigation because your ability to i would say it doesn't in this case neither but a rule to a law on again the languages of party may i'm taking full disclosure relevant to any claim or defense we haven't made our health and defense in this case and as you pointed out your honor it is there's no way to stop that train if you say by filing a lawsuit the defendant's health is additional it would always be and it the case was very clear the privilege controls relevance and it's a public policy issue where they have sad we're going to keep this private unless the defendant puts it  has a constitutional right to a rule of evidence and cited another supreme court case all the way back in i think nineteen twenty three so  clearly but this privilege is simply a rule eleven us he doesn't he doesn't have a right one way or another need the courts were the legislature asim the
here this is the site location this is the layout of the site there are twenty single family loss the lot that ed was referencing is at the entrance here so what is occurring is that the this gentleman is property one is actually right here and we are going to be dedicating additional space to him because we're creating this road entrance in here so we're taking that space and we're going to consolidated into this gentleman's lot giving him additional area open space had already hit on the amount but these are just the locations the light green is passive open space the dark green is mcadoo in space this is where the gazebo will be located the area highlighted in blue will be a parcel that will be which created into a lot that would have been here so we had to eliminate that for sidewalks right highlights sidewalks there will be one side coming up into the development and then on both loop stormwater management of the blue showing the conveyor system to the pole and that's located here plan recommendation to be approved as outlined in the october fourth memo came clued in the thirteen conditions of the planning staff recommendations here in the new rolling hills or here it also reflects the new configuration of these big murray wrote down here and this is a recommendation goes goes through it he said it's not i'm talking about  i did want to integrate your comment about make it easier to get out i think the bore but i haven't signed off on it yet but i told the engineer i would i think it's a great idea but not only will make it easier it would be impossible without that kind ship there
also in that line of festival she also very specifically testified that ravi although all the unless your property the question is how does she come to a conclusion or how does a jury come to a conclusion if the if  suggested to the jury that one of two conclusions can be reached that she could own the trade rest or robbie could only trade dress or rob you wasn't there so that's why it was confusing and i think it misled the jer ejected so the instruction fifteen as it relates to that was of a construction we were looking for an instruction no actually i think we just we we just  dress and that's why we felt that in a structure not ownership was necessary when we got was an instruction on ownership model instructions the didn't and that was that was our dispute and i can't put my hand on instruction no i don't have one at the ready but these things are designed decided on the law if somebody judgment oftentimes and and and probably should have been decided credible you have to look at jennifer grey testimony there was eleven witness that saw and came forward and said hey i thought i bought that room and restarting the original garden ground to them becoming distributors of their own relatable product the ultimate art and room where they made no effort to distinguish one t c that they were now selling a different product go on advertising it in the exact same other instruction but if you look at the record it's unclear what instruction they were hoping to have when they objected one hundred and thirteen dollars and then didn't propose any alternative instruction further it's incorrect for a con and then they accidentally bought the ultimate barber because they look exactly the same and then the testimony on intentional copying that i didn't yet know john was very clear from  he had a couple different manufacturers and that were one to help him with as one of them an individual name that she told him well i can make some changes so it doesn't look like this original card so that you're not infringing and several different testimony that even after that there were some problems with the villagers where they were i'm able to get the same amount of equals or that would look the same so completely contradicts a pulse testimony that this was a widely available groom and that they just went and found someone else making it it was not in the shelters as a haitian and then there are issues with getting it to look the same because it was not already a widely made or available product and then again we have the testimony from ross and to whether or not his he was a distributor it fact is he was not a distributor the facts are that h o a s he was a customer runs and i am and roger and i again testified clearly that she was the only exclusive distributor unsubstantiated all hearsay the only person the stepped up to say i was confused was mis rest and finally with respect to mr inglis mr inglis is testimony was not the objection a brief is not in evidence so there is no evidence they have no evidence for mr mr inglis that there was a likelihood of confusion and a likely confusion doesn't equate to actual
the search warrant in this case was applied for by officer joyner on june th two thousand and eighteen applied for what i have to a circuit counsel is there any basis to suppress other than your argument that that there are a liability of john doe was not sufficiently is that one of them which to concede the information if provided by we did not investigate real group who confirmed the science corroborated is information by signing the written statement in the judge's presence accident and asking confirmed that it was after he confirmed that and so drug out of the house he confirmed that evans had a firearm then the detective ran a criminal history check it doesn't matter if the mystical a talked about he doesn't know whether it's two or three times multiple times he drove by the residence going to surveillance mr joint detective joining he saw individuals leaving and cami that in after that judge bolton house and a magistrate judge here had a hearing about this very issue and he agree that the information was cooperated active that judge whatever  affidavit as establishing probable cause to arrest they really said nothing to that they only involved an entirely different different issue and certainly certainly did not say that the information in  affidavit couldn't be used or possibly even establish probable cause to arrest the person those for a place was being searched is there some other case besides bailey that's ever s to me logically that they that the warrant affidavit information isn't part of the totality of the circumstances that gates says you need for two arrests no your honor there is no other case that i've been able  activity at the time that was correct while driving away after completing controlled by and then webster you had to contrary baes and the rd by when the rest occurred totally arguably different than the fact thousand and eighteen and any evidence or testimony about any statements allegedly made by d on your evidence to the police on june th two thousand and eighteen evidence obtained as a direct