MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
emergency exception last and it turns back to the facts of this case now we brought for the six thirty two building adjacent to the building that was on fire at the city of chicago when they went before the courts to seek an emergency order demolition they said it best there would be no danger of the six thirty two building and that the supply to the south was not an imminent danger of collapse the primary concern that the company had to address was protecting as all tracks and they had done the job was done they also had ceased the this will feed north belfast i'd sue the insurance plaintiffs bil bet that was that the threat to the seat tracks had been upgraded and that's really kind of focusing on the weight they judge griffin had placed on the six factor the pilot policy factor on all issues that were presented me we're dealing with beck says and i think this case hinges on the last two factors you want to address those factors as to why why we take those specters and consider them to be the two activity to her kitchen to some other place where it's less dangerous that's the reason for this factor in the location of the activity can't be moved because it's impossible to move it i don't see how at the location of the work dexter building there is no way could to it could have taken place anywhere else and so there's there's no way to give the defense and incentive to move the activity to sound that's populated place i think that it factors in fact you know when you could do the activity where you want to do it i don't think it's ethical show me how this could be applicable here is applicable where a party can carry on activity this activity the question here is an emergency demolition that was necessary to protect the public safety in this is not a profit making venture for the city this is a public service that was conducted  record in this case i think the case hinges on the last two factors that you know with which you're talking about i don't think question is who should pay for the
oh whoa whoa oh whoa whoa whoa
correct a well i mean the primary purpose of to have a hearing in front of the ca opportunity present evidence she's able to cross examine witnesses the rules of evidence were followed and she had a conference stand the procedure here was way more in depth in traditional sense than hearing th
happened typically as you all know that there is no his and his decision also in the rubber stamp the three are number one there had to be agreement if they altered any kind of procedure but more importantly when the two arbitrators decided to ask one of the parties what do you think is fair and decided the two of them to adopt that as the judgment of the arbitration yaml didn't they in effect abandon their role as arbitrators was deciders of the factual issues the genuine factual issues and make a an award that was beyond normal processes common played by the hours to convince them that not something but a substantial amount of money an extra five hundred thousand dollars all if that is all what  trial judge that we've all either reopened cases on motion the party or on our own motion i have them divorce cases by concerned yes it sounds like and i don't see anything in the record contravening it that the majority of the arbitration panel essentially said let's see what he thinks is fair that's what will be fair and that seems to be a vacation of
by the state to avoid interruption of your outgoing service and five days later terminations of your incoming service that tomorrow they're going to come in turn up tomorrow t what you do when you call up lloyd's of london and you have them insured for three hundred thousand dollars do you think you can do that but good you know you know tommy i really want to talk to you about the girls you brought in here for background saying i don't think they look good i mean they don't look good with you they don't look good with anybody else in the band and it's not just me who think that the other girls think so so they don't spit in ones that stand snaps the gum opens a good while the other one says they're
too from bringing these sort of odd claims that they have a liberty interest in i think in that case there is some amount of property owners out and the difference between a case like ours and a case like ashley is that for a liberty interest you have to have procedural due hawkins involved an action brought by the department of corrections against an inmate to see to what are we covered or to seek to levy against some assets held outside of the prison system the separate bank account and conflicted with the culture of corruption did not include any broad language finding and a forcible right on behalf of it made in that in that moreover and i think this is another point inherently neither this on and you should only be done where serious detriment prejudicial to the public interest would occur and i'm quoting on a case called anderson versus around three forty illinois public court six thirteen at six twenty two that's the second district law the question is the question is what or what are the questions it is and this is from a rich case the question is whether the claim against the defendants or against the state arises from a statute that applie actually wise a constitutional liberty interest now with respect to sovereign immunity the state can't claim interference with its functions when the claim is to force them to comply with their own law negligence actions or claiming that the official should have applied their authority in a different way those cases end up in the court of claims cases where it's a clear statutory rule that does not grant any authority to the state those cases a
moving on to to the argument in this case the interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law all terms must be plain ordinary meaning and all exclusions must be in faces on that issue of whether this was a little well i did look into what the term rental was rental in terms of western stationery includes the concept of temporary particularly useful deal isn't make it worse it's chicago park district in that case the illinois supreme court agreed that a payment for use of public property in their case a harbor  councils argument there is no opportunity for this interpretation of the motor vehicle exclusion to increase in any dramatic  way coverage offered so you posit holders because the circumstances under which it could be applied i e the use of a recreational vehicle on i'm you know residence that not create residency because he had no intention of staying or continuing to reside permanently within that one i believe that case that what it what is the evidence  terms of the policy and then you make a determination as to whether or not the allegations of negatives are ten shillings within coverage of the policy and i think pretty clearly they are i want to focus my argument on whether or  does not apply in this case the duty the exclusion relied upon by the trial court was there's no duty to defend if the allegations of does not was not loading or unloading vehicle as such i believe that that term motor vehicle exclusion is not clear and free from doubt as is required since that term is ambiguous this or should i believe bad whenever you're considering an insurance policy you need to take a look at what was expected from the standpoint of the insured if mr hoskins if it was his a t v if he was using and if he caused injury is he failed to supervise his stepson in his stepson's operation of that a t v back is what farmers i believe was intending to split from bridge mr hoskins active participation scrooge's covered because the policy says we will pay those items are bad insured becomes legally obligated to pay and i believe that if you're looking at the allegations of the complaint clearly those fall within those allegations you have been sued in may because all right as mr graham pointed out the out the policy does provide defen that issue the vehicle being used by schmidt the stepson in this case was actually owned by another part of the buyer and i are purchased the white sands to use that the insurance would be covered if it were in a trust with the husband's name on it then you're getting into state law in terms of what ownership interest is in the legal definition gave the insurer that o some places they find to get to use the ferris wheel is another in other cases they say paying your bell fee is enough where do we draw the line i
arrested to be sure which included a strip search prior to incarceration so you look at the justification you have a search warrant so the police went above and beyond it's what they would otherwise they could the lon arrest and search him because he's going to the county jail why should he be treated differently when there's a search warrant well i agree and that's what's interesting here is that that's my point the city did not rely on him a star in the trial court so talk here and hence laws are asleep with references to this when they say it's known to the people who sell drugs and this defendant had a long history which was explained in the us to david the people who sell drugs frequently police officer just get boring first with strip search or through a warrant or through one o three i mean if you're saying hey it's common that drug offenders typically carry drugs and conceal search against the invasion of personal rights that this search entails and we look at the circumstances surrounding the searches and then we'll look to the fourth amendment but the fourth give us code when you can but you can't take the search but an extension of their their turn in jail and when you're in jail you are in custody there are fewer privacy rights which answers i think just as in other questions about the fourth amendment you have fewer privacy williams the only supreme court and which is argued every day in courts across illinois my client was under arrest because he was detained there was a show of force you don't have to h felony and that he is in possession of contraband narcotics you have to have war with a search warrant yes ok let me ask you this you say it's them versus leave bre for the proposition search beyond your search of the person to invade that suit that heightened privacy interest don't we use or common sense in looking at a war and what the court  that in his experience as a member of the gang unit in handling drug cases that persons who sell guns are known to conceal contraband get their private areas that need their clothes
so you have a resolution and then you have the circulation period and then you have five seventy five days in the primary was able to maintain five business days after that or certain sections and the
the contract that correct and the office was published in some kind of handbook correct and so payment was made to this individual greg and yet it's here contention on basically what he is doing is he is in the field supervising student teachers and the teachers in charge of those new teachers was the education building and he has half  just said it isn't he wouldn't we believe he would not be making any as many trips if he weren't being reimbursed my question is what proof do you have of that process and all th the super the guidelines for discovery or in the illinois rules the circuit court excuse you have the do we have the right to oversee that if the on it certainly wasn't there wasn't an issue for the for the trial court in this case with regard to this decision it says charges were fees passed by the courts such as filing and under those circumstances the core of current summary judgment in favor of a person who is a bit of those claims and refused to hold that person liable following the government's explicit directions and that you have someone do who travels for the university for their job or would you let them do it if i were like mr joe i would've told him number one you need to change these
no doubt that the court did see him in that position i don't see how ok rule is the rule otherwise and as my second point is the only thing he wants to do is make  argument a little bit stronger that's all he wants to do and that's the problem with the  for the twist in this case of there being the pending motion to amend it what why couldn't we say we wish him the stack there must be a third stage hearing on the juror contact issue and we're also already sections simply says that within thirty days the state shall answer a move to dismiss so unlike the first day of this particular proceedings there is no language that you have to deal with the fishing as a whole and i  would be very easy to have a second stage hearing to say i am dismissing these three things and having  so that to me is the critical issue here and i think when you get the record when you find it one of the things that i find the most important i
exhibition was was in the course or of an act in the course of the relationship restatement test that illinois has adopted to analyze conflicts issues under these types of circumstances under section one forty six there is a legal presumption that the state in which the injury occurred applies in determining the rights in the liabilities of the six two factors are basically what our courts have sat and what the restatement says is that the significant contacts in section one forty five have to be tested against the policies in that section says section six to those factors includ the relevant policies of the form state the relevant policies of the other interesting state in this case indiana and then the basic policies underlying particular field of law so i am  we need to consider is an evaluation of the factors in one forty five and section six and i'm going to i'm going to focus on the factors that are really at issue between the parties wrong so the first with crash after he had been driving cross the united states from minnesota colorado the idea behind it was that the fact that the defendant had a continuous need writing across minnesota hired however there's not any support for these allegations in the record on now is the absolutely correct no in her reply that this case though we are analyzing it based on the pleadings because that's what the record is primarily made  grandchildren are residents of the state of indiana so what you have is two two parties that reside in illinois and two parties that reside in indiana those those orders those counties were all part of the case  do so from the allegations of the pleadings that as the grandchildren residing in the parties were driving from indiana at the time of the accident which was the end of the vacation they were in indiana because they needed to drop the grandchildren off the vacation is coming to  the atlanta both of their grandchildren were all coming back from vacation they were all going on together and as pointed out in the police that there is no information regarding the state in which the relationship between the apple and the app we in our grandchildren is really be based on height it just you know it would not be difficult for the grandparents to go see the grandchildren and it would be very difficult for the grandchildren you can see their grandparents so i also assume is that this factor should be given very little weight as there really isn't very no problem very briefly i think it's important to go through these reactors one more time  this law only affects the illinois residents that's why the indiana resident should should should not be considered for purposes of this particular issue and this all if you're saying that there's no legal responsibility in this case valerie happens when she tries to make her insurance on the insurance company if the law there's no legal there's no legal
that the water from the first lawsuit was here and this is the water main the system was supposed to be in the water and it doesn't leak in the water at all and then of course the judge said that there was insufficient evidence of
and distinguished band leader al natalis classic swing orchestra brought to you by the friends of the belmont council on aging i'm joel samuels president of friends organization tonight allen is orchestra will take you back to the big band era with music from great such as glen miller benny goodman barry james tommy dorsey and count basi and back again featured in tonight's show will be talented vocalist jim this concert is a fundraiser would not have been possible without our sponsors in addition to thanking you for attending we would like to thank the following commercial sponsors for their financial support of this concert linda macdonald coldwell banker premium associate watertown savings bank beacon in home belmont manor nursing and rehabilitation center cambridge trust company home instead senior care always best care century twenty one adams lawndale and the belmont women's club i would appreciate if you would consider using the businesses i've mentioned if you are in the market for their type of services i would also like to anonymous in honor of al natalee and my wife marcia and i proceeds from tonight's concert will benefit the council on aging these programs and services here at the beach street center there will be one intermission with light refreshments served in the back so now without further ado let's enjoy and if you like dance to the music of belmont's treasure in his finale concert for us al natale and his classic swing orchestra thank you hello everybody good it's really nice seeing everybody here thank you thank you for coming well that's a perfectly executed fade out all right we're going to take a fifteen minute intermission in just a couple of minutes so we will be serving refreshments in the back  and we'll take fifteen minutes and be back about five after so the refreshments are coming in if you'll just wait a couple of minutes for them to get out fifteen minutes and we'll have our nd set all right before we get back to more great music i would like to take a moment to thank al on behalf of the friends organization for all he has done to support programs and services for seniors here at the beach street center and in town before i would also like to thank the members of the planning committee who made this concert possible carolyn bunyan david shading hildy divorce shock janice allard john gray chris soon jane dolores our next friends group sponsored event will be the annual crafts fair which will take place on saturday november th that's the saturday before thanksgiving here at the center so by your holiday crafts at the crafts fair ok i don't know what now he's a trumpet player and they don't have trumpets and country western bands but i guess if anybody could play in a western country western band it would be the tall keep that song was that we've all heard that song but that was originally written for fred astaire believe it or not i'm saying that in the film well this is this is my last one and i want to say a few things before i wanted to say yeah i just wanted to say thank you for coming good night
sufficiency of the evidence regarding the amount or weight of canvas i'd like to focus my argument today on this second issue regarding the weight it would have been be happy to discuss any questions the owners have regarding the issue of knowledge this issue is fairly straightforward there would not be difficult to speculate as the trial judge did that the remaining three packets that were untested also contain cocaine that finally has to be based on evidence not speculation or guess or conjecture similarly here it's be covered he was put into a box into the chemist in a chemist was asked what is in the box and she only said nine thousand one hundred thirty two grams of plant material and that testimony it seems that the wrapping was not there and that it was mixed the other some point but even if it of the wave right the problem that is without any description that these were all democrat items identical packaging similar appearance of the leaves similar coloring anything like that before they were mixed together you have  underneath the carpet in the trunk spray foam insulation there was a masking agent on live on a number of bundles which might make someone who is not sufficiently trained on able to detect odor but  council mr harris you may reply pounds and that's actually a significant difference from the way the plant material that the plant material is one thousand one hundred thirty three grams which is roughly twenty one point six seven pounds the officer recovered twenty three pounds that indicates that there could have been over a pound of packaging of individual wrapping but again because the evidence was insufficient they didn't say how many bottles there were they didn't say how many bottles arrived at the chemist or whether the chemist reseated all mixed together but either way whether vic police
indicated that a portion of the bank account monies were changed over to stock and that song was previously transferred to this house and there were the amount of money that was awarded might actually  want to frame i don't want to split the share of the trade right now what are we supposed to do with it i mean you do so with these transactions on your own and you know there have been six lawyers involved in this case
as an interested person within dissemination of information that they provide or if you know they advocate that you know i wish to head the office a guardian is the guardian of last resort and that these people are alienated from their friends and family and at the mental age of eighteen months have no ability to communicate whatsoever so is if we can come in to the core and say there is abuse school here who who so the significance of that is that you sort of the poor goes on to look at the problem here in georgia with two issues that they raise in terms of the preliminary injunction are
you know oh my goodness
anyone she not under duress she was shaking she was crying she was told she had to sign it if she wanted to have custody children why wasn't this procedural unconscionable well first of all there is to be incidence of caution ability she said the currency looked at this agreement and going over it for one or two hons she says she was represented by an attorney she said that yes she was these other cases like for example richardson where the want just lost her father where she went towards office not knowing what the heck was going on there was a one sided you know her provided by her husband's provided by her thousand dollars of his money at the time and put into this new house ok with her sheer would only be fifty percent of the of of was out here for his mouth of the entire i'm not ready if she's going to lose the sixty seven i'm just reading it that they heard that her equity was limited to sixty seven like basically no matter they could live in the taj mahal all but her equity is sixty eight seven and that's all she's going to get is that sixty seven plus i say that's true but my point my point is that you know whatever whatever she want to do with it she had a right to do so how much money was giving her to take care of the kids throughout the game she was  by which we as science choose to live and the laws are also here to protect us and we in the legal profession have two major responsibilities with  consideration of the law the first as this court does is to interpret the wall but i think more importantly anyone involved in the legal profession has a right to  integrity of the wall and that's how i see this case we're here talking a lot in agreement then he had no consideration and i have yet to see a more it not the benefit of the bargain she she was able to stay in the home and raise her children until they reach majority which did she not receive the benefit of her birth now she's doing what she was obligated to do under the law and i  if she has some point in time if you will collect their wits and decide it should be a big deal she should go into court declaratory judgment action or something to get this thing thrown out she waited until she left