MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
on the issue of infringement in making that decision the court made a number of errors of law which are outlined in great detail in our main brief but we've even changed our own claim constructions saying that pulmonary injunctions are just that palin unary premature and even if we've adopted a claim construction and  claims for you don't you know i  would like but but why should we do that when we now have conceded lee and a premature record that all the evidence isn't in it's there was on the second patent we minute that the problem is that the judge relied on a dictionary that was completely out of context with the with the specific nature of  james court has instead let's talk about it for a second let's talk about the start with the second one the common vs parallel plane notion and the judge relies heavily on a dictionary which we've discounted significantly in our philips jurisprudence and ignores an expert who says it could be a common plane indeed the specification at one point says yes and why isn't there a part of it that remains with man with then you could have said the first member has to be slightly a lower body subparts attach the proximal and of one of the first member and then the other end of is that meant by this there's a you've got now yeah yeah if you've read those i might have asked you whether this is the case to take on bach to discuss the standard review in claim construction and if you'd read that you might be able to give me an our presiding judge has it correctly pointed out that it's a question of law and that would argue in favor of doing what you said we have though in two cases said it's all preliminary we're not bound to follow it in a pulmonary injunction setting what to do with those and the c b i be it a case of course what i'm talking about  understand but i don't think you should do that this case because in this case do you perceive any inconsistency in our jurisprudence and that fact and those cases you know it's consistency i have to and but the supreme court is that when you look at an injunction you have to consider all or only you have to do in the patent case just as you to do in a contract case and that doesn't work because that's what save the
used ok but in theory you might be able to apply for some right away to gain access to your water and i don't know truck your cattle in to get their water and truck come out so that they don't  therefore you should get grazing rights with your attendant to the water rights but how can a battle law preempts a federal program a federal land grant it was there is there's not a preempti obligation to regard this is an issue that the united states has raised the position that we are taking in this league is that there was a sense of the actions by the government that are us from accessing the water rights and making a full use just one when we're there was initially and then one year of nonpayment would bother most land owners i would think it would be a situation where we rented a house and the land we're going to let you use smith's hage opinion before us but how would you square this with his ruling that within fifty feet of water you have limited grazing rights  rights attendant upon the water rights how does the federal government acknowledge that well that for that question is we believe in correct that montana expressly says that you can graze alongside your water right whatever it may be what would the government what would how would that square with the b l m as a practical matter how does mr coleman protect his water rights from from wild burros or from mr johns cattle or or from anything else if he's denied any kind of access to a couple or how does the use his water right to be even more express i think it is important to look at the water as you would
good morning would you call the first case pl right but he also used irregularities in connection with his performance of the duties some deposition and as a lawyer correct but he was painted as a lawyer an extra twenty thousand dollars he was still and it is really specific and when the states including but not limited to embroidery list yes remedies and specifically recites that those remedies are here because he had started at the end was there anything that prevented c s u from turning to him and saying you know what if we get it for punitive damages we're going to be looking to you personally to pay that if there are no other questions i think  you know he did it damages propre in this case where the jury found a specific threat against mr crowley and his trauma nation directly related to that threat carried it out how this should have been raised and could have been raised earlier i just think it painted you know perhaps a stronger position than the morals one you're standing in now well you know your honor sometimes you have to simply go with what the record is but this
twenty years you know but they've agreed to do it is to you i don't know  it has to be thirty feet under the statu one one you can't treat them as a public usually right away under five seven one one because they have to be thirty feet wide not two hundred ten fe us the village at the conveyance before and that's what all th
there is nothing to back up this story and recently you would think would get a copy of the deed from the from the commish the land commissioner and you know just this is the this is my land because this is what it's all about if you're saying that we that there's an obligation for
the lighting and i think it's helpful understand both of these i want to talk a little bit about them but before you do i want to just talk a little bit about one science which is how call in understand me some other advantages and disadvantages of different types of lighting w ears the plants respond and the blue here is a human response so they're almost completely opposite what a plant usually human needs and solve the penny know what kind of organism you are requiring use different parts of the solar spectrum that deliver the bedroom your living room of things like that on the other end of the scale like five thousand six thousand color temperature is a lot you might want to put into your garage so probably i is where the sun is giving us and is measured in terms of scale of zero to one hundred and this picture here shows a color rendering index of one hundred some very very bright colors and closely represents what the sun is color rendering index on the fluorescent lights is not very good ok going to look like so this one this plane was actually designed for plants this particular one for a spectrum that lionsgate for a particular reason versus you know more white light that you might find in your home industry and all the confusion that i had for also just went away because someone who really really good company came up with a really really terrific light ball and brought the price down to where it was actually portable fifteen to twenty five dollars at that time and what we're seeing here is a really good company in a great life all under five boxes like unbelievable and so that's why i say there's no better time to buy a light bulb and right now crea
longer head it would be approx i don't know anything about banking laws banking procedures i'm if the reason to think what you just said to him is that correct but how do i know that look at the structure with the trial every remote speculative possibility they should hear this work or our view is if they thought that there was a problem on the solution then it wasn't just rank speculation they should've asked for  possibly some notes were paid i think your point throat and not are listed that somehow because there's a statement of some remote possibility and then a list that really is
than thirty years of service to school this is why maybe not she worked as a teacher for twenty five years and then from the fall of two thousand and two till her retirement in june of two thousand and twelve she worked as an administrator she was the allegation the plane to be made with regard to her ryan's on that specific policy was that she continued with her employment after the policy was implied contract and in fact those are the basis for liability against a municipal corporation i submitted the piece of wood addition i believe that the defendant district has indicated that if in fact a contract why was awful or could be offered by the district that the plaintiff did not  that exists between the employer the employee s regarding compensation on the cases that are cited on behalf of plaintiff indicate that the idea of an of compensation of course the the usual sent one that issue is in fact the policy and in that regard it is specificity with wish the policy speech to indicated that parties were leaving about what was being offered and then and accepted and in that sense that certainly comes with in the type of agreement that it is covered by a wage payment and collection act the defendant district of course argued back the policy cannot be the basis for a contract or group but to the extent of the specificity of that benefit that is being conveyed to the employee to induce them to remain and provide service to the district which is what my client did i hope that that is a question that this court considers in connection i did bring up the question of whether of the defendant's motion to dismiss is probably considered under section two six fifteen or as the motion itself indicated under two section section or fact true for the purposes of handling its review so i don't know that there's much profit by pointed out in the brief only in so far as to six nineteen would suggest that there was some those types of instances where a person or violence a good period of time a service to the mental entity as an employee that the policy has all been as the policy is an extension of legislative action that but as an extension of back there's an understanding that the  factually as i understand it the policy was made a part of the manual the manual itself was given to all administrative lawyers including my client so to the extent that it was done  in that sense does it does it matter how it was disseminated for purposes of promissory estoppel well i would say it does in the sense of how reasonable is somebodies reliance if
c because the seizure order may not exceed the remaining amount owed under the money judgment wearing this court the order clearly we think children is court judge kaplan issued an illegal well as a result of an ad or omission of the defendant scott sanders excuse me your initial three minutes have expired ok another courtroom in which mr sanders and counsel in the district court inform the government that it was ex wife who he was in possession of tainted assets which the position that these untainted assets should not be allowed to be forfeited the government is simply saying ok we'll forfeit to the amount that it's over and if there's any additional monies that need to be returned we'll take informing the court and the government that the house standing balanced load on the money judgment and for forfeiture could be paid because mr sanders ex wife w to bring in a rd party accept that that's true but it's relevant only in our case here today because when you read if you're like hold on i understand you're saying let me just see if i can see where the difference is between you and the government sure as trouble ensuring or not but there isn't a wine in the water that says that that was that was proven you're just saying that he did not address this allegation regarding the ex wife you know what i'm saying is you have now it's entirely relevant to point out that there are painted assets that exist we believe the court refuses to acknowledge it the government is refusing to even look at it they're saying no you know what we're just going to take the done thing that a sanders there's never seeing any any any filings by the government that says mr sanders absconded or dissipated this particular asset and for that reason we previously had agreed to surrender to the government for forfeiture was no longer available and cannot be found by the government upon due diligence that was the basis for the want to clear up some confusion in this case st of all the points in question in the divorce case run painted as they hit the not really relevant to the analysis here i want to those suggest to you and you say that judge kaplan didn't make a finding that mr sanders dissipated as a lawyers will closely as its findings because there are no identified tainted assets that judge kaplan identifies which we has demonstrated through in order that mr sanders steps dissipated and he has now arrived for the government to now come in and get on to the assets the other point i want to clear up for the court i think it's very y into the case because she held the tainted assets and that was that issue in the court the court rejected the idea that you can do with rd party people complain and bring it into the criminal proceeding that's what he did he never took any alleged in the rd party draft complaint that was rejected has merit and give full size an opportunity to argue it and let the court decide whether or not those tainted assets are more appropriate for seizure under the forfeiture and stead of
didn't even believe that that the argument propounded later in november of sixty didn't come up until later because all the early stuff never mentions when when did the representation start for both parties when they started litigat specifically you know the verbiage of that there's been a separation or divorce doesn't say and agreed that you no matter the most rich will be responsible for his own legal expenses and forty percent of the wife we will spence is in the us and then they strike out she is an  charges but that's proof and then if there is a conflict about the amount or parts of the amount it's about what evidence is presented to the court there is some evidence presented to the divorce or legal separation when i turn to for a lap and the language is a little different it says in the event that either party files a petition for legal separation or divorce why wouldn't their language trigger the attorney fees the first the duty to pay maintenance is conditioned on a divorce or a legal separation but the pain of attorney's fees is condition than by my reading of four eleven the filing of a petition
conflicts with search trainers and she was given plenty of opportunities for that she's also issued a notice and then another performance improvement plan which she was given and wh
to section one hundred eighty three class the first for use of excessive force the district court held that because this quote had not yet clarified whether the fourth amendment or the fourteenth amendment applied to it as a side note the district court incorrectly identified the gender of that officer had this report mentioned it for time served to me it seemed important to him it shouldn't make any difference immediately after mr iowa's decision was not it was before mr or mr burgess his arrest it was decided by the same court of course that the southern district in the bound by its own decisions it should have been informative to the district court in this case diagnose the sorts of different problems including broken bouts in this case she actually didn't do them a nation of mr burgess he had lost a tooth he handed it to her she noticed that he was bleeding from his face and his head that any medical professional see these injuries that she could see from the other side of that the jail cell or would have known that a natural examination would be necessary to determine if mr butters had any injuries to his eyes he said that that specific injury to his elbow socket could resulted muscles being trapped in the bone and mr burgess could have lost the eye that didn't happen mr burgess was lucky the fact that this defendant went through years of medical training and a master's degree so that you could get to this level was specifically licensed by the state to provide medical care and  shocks the conscious standard which require a sadistic or malicious behavior that actually is punishment and a good faith effort to maintain discipline pujol the district court's decision a second case on the same set of facts was found and the records were on and the court said because as the record potential a permitted disposition records during that time that there was no station i see my time is up i appreciate your time this morning thank you thank you the district court's decision that before she's against mr burgess was reasonable this is a legitimate issue of factory honor the excuse used by the defendants for actually using any force that mr burgess was that he used to keep us from on the search mat and that for that reason they were supposedly having trouble searching him he kept turning his head because he wanted to see what was going on is what he  testified there is a regiment question whether that is an excuse for it and performing a takedown on a handcuffed individual who was being held and searched by two officers within that officer standing within a few feet of him and standing within a few feet away from there presents a question for the jury as to what weight to give the form and how conscious mr burgess was when he signed it then there's the issue that the defendants have continually raised as to mr burgess's injuries were caused and we didn't actually take a deposition and there's a question how far away she was whether she would have been able to rush in and keep his head from hitting the floor every she was on the side that he went toward the pictures demonstrate that us and as i said
which dr law was found to be there this court said that it is a missile again as noted by the sport this morning we don't need to go of and see what texas thinks about of all it's affords not the long conclusion that dependence bought up a level was very high and number two even if you want whether or not the benefit had cocaine the system has nothing to do with with it is actions were the proximate cause of this act of th
i believe i have a little live in and we're back on the record our discussions is our contractual considerations associated with this request is being made if i we solicit proposals to complete the police station community room and you would not be permitted to participate in the reading of that wor here but perhaps represented by the tense we have been satisfied with what you've done we believe the two projects to completed today already had been done to those factories it is not a comment about that had i substantiate this but you should realize that the properly substantiate you've got to be able to prove that error and in my opinion within the four corners of the paper your estimate holds them to the contract to complete the fire station along with the public works garage they've already completed i'll second that any further discussion with council members audience down all  question about the statement that says it does not conform to and is not included in the official plan for peters township so is that to specify that it's excluded from peter's township sanitary service now as this ok the second question i had the next last paragraph says that the that they used this withhold final approval until completion of the water quality management permit and in fact there are other conditions is if this doesn't give them any additional approvals that they won't get from plant until they get them from planning and council is that correct that's correct and then i think it's the census number the occupancy two point four five versus two point seven because if you use the two point eight seven whispering pines is than actually a higher occupancy number of one hundred just in their description it was just i'm just trying to understand because it is a new document and they have to provide the information so thank you you meet the public is permitted to attend these meetings but in essence the conduct of the meeting itself except for those public only engaging opportunities is going to be choose the thinking was also there would be a representative from planning commission and council planning commission has recommended marie leggo work to be their representative on the steering committee i'm hearing in rumors that this council is thinking the chairman should be that that just i'd make the motion that mr lewis be appointed as are and i think we need to also sing waiters and the other individuals like  and we did make the first came in on the turf and
public school teachers cannot be terminated after off to provide certain due process rights which includes a teacher being given charges for the basis of the proposed discharge or like you before talking about it the specific charges made several points generally the first is then a discharge case it's the disbelief the bears the burden of proof ponder instead  and in this case it is important to know that particular charge is not part of the original charges it was a charge dept which is designed to guilty to the fact that she provided him with consistent information to police officer in two interviews believe this and i say that for a couple of reasons number one if one looks at the context the team was made to resolve a criminal proceeding it was top of an investigation that led to a charge number two in contradiction and and what she told the police officer she was probably property during the course investigation she met with the investigator probably isn't an hour of being requested on two separate occasions and other circumstances for example in the payne face i think it involved a drug possession charge and the teacher after he entered the plea engage in similar misconduct later there was one case and i think it's  but in this case both different stories during her testimony where with the police she read where in the school district attorney's question on her she says i will not remember what i said then when she testifies it's clear and good i don't think so based on the fact that it's incorporated is that it incorporates into the original and i think there are no cases to do exactly with the situation but i think it would be incorporated back and  off but you appear to make some suggestions to the pounds on the if the wrong doing what wrong doing was connected with something directly with the school district or versus person and the question is this mr fitzgerald with respect to the fact issue and with respect to the their criminal the clearly wrong  his decision is supported by only case law which says you look at the criminal pleat the admission and the surrounding circumstances and while another finder of fact may say all those surrounding circumstances are not enough to overcome it discharged decision the fact that an opposite conclusion can be a breach this is not clearly wrong and if it's our position that
gives them two different allocations there there don't know isn't disclosed to them the mr trooper miserable areas are going to have a much larger chunk of so money that's not just close to them and where they have as for i guess all those that come to benefit feed i mean there's a lot of sitting on this you know we would contend it was i mean i think the reason the cases filed here in the state court was to avoid paying one of therefore the request that just paid any additional terms the use should also be rejected the releases has a duty to ensure that if he is reasonable so if he does are below felt that the feet to forty percent of johnson's claim was one reasonable and that the few should have been thirty three percent  because all of the leading up to the january twenty seven two thousand and fifteen order there's nothing in the record there's no hearings there's no motions there's nothing for example from johnson's in these are my