MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
interrogations he set forth a particular version of the facts which later he recanted and so the jury in hearing the interviews of the th and they they heard his various versions and flip flops and potentially that was damaging to the defendant whereas had only been the ten you wouldn't have had those prior and consistencies demonstrated is that fair y interviews and here there was a substantial amount of time between the end of the february th interrogation and the felt word because interrogation is simply a matter of us determining whether or not
serious position is that with respect to the status quo or the borgata exactly the issue that we have is that the border should never have gotten to the status a not a collective bargaining agreement and you have a contract with the sale of goods for example and that contract ended on a certain day you're certainly aware of custom and practice and how that's used why is it any different here they're talking about this was the custom in practice this was how the status quo has always been maintained under the collective bargaining agreement when prior agreements have expired this is what's happened
language concerning these alleged conspirators conspiracy not just to not publish something that would be harmful to the industry but also to get it the result of these scientific  studies to remove any indication that asbestos leads to cancer and the farm understand it correctly that's the suggestion where the conspiracy was the steel ball to those findings and to make sure that it  never comes out of this process could in fact lead to cancer it's not so much whether or not it was published as opposed to what was published they're good at it but the scientific factors themselves
the next case is united financial casualty be countrywide insurance  if it itself is made contingent on existence of other coverage and in fact the coverage actually exists so now we sort of needed to find that out and it wasn't for lack of tr october the contacts were made by my client he apparently had the name of somebody there and there was never a response in october he hired our firm has hired him at over and we did the same thing we wrote to them and heard not applicable to my client in this case and therefore the court holding we believe committed by united financial to avoid its coverage obligations in this case was barred by ferry or to properly serve a disclaimer as required by insurance walker for twenty how could it serve a disclaimer insurance carrier dealing with another one i mean they they didn't disclaim in fact they're covering so why would they disclose i think his claim when they're prepared to cover if there is no underlying pacer and the notion here this argument that the report twenty doesn't apply to carriers that's a new argument that they raised for the st time what they argue ball what was what good does it do what what terrible judgment you might say well they never they never contacted often and they should have disclaimed or whatever but i mean you had notice that this was ongoing and if you wanted to come in and defend you could have done that i just are only continue as long and until they can prove that they did not have coverage and in order to do that they would need a copy of your policy which which countrywide was not finding how can they go to court and say that under the powerfully that they issued that they have no coverage and then a family and a reservation of rights and they want to be freed of the duty to defend when did did countrywide policy cover this occurrence
are point i think he is straightforward and simple we believe that your original decision ultimately determined on the state of the record in the probate case in divorce cases that time what he ordered judge bachmann in fact did but he did not decide whether or not that order and resolve was equitable or whether or not that should be reversed domains of turning there was no notice to anyone and there was no hearing and accordingly no record accordingly the judge  ultimately enter that order that had to result vacating the judgment of dissolution of marriage that had been awarded to the parties without any and quite at that point in time so that's in essence made that i am it was the divorce on grounds and that's how we have don't want i guess so to speak same issues it was hot or deeper restored margolin has been dead for two years now they're trying him back and take another look at this arguing just the opposite of what they argued last year last year they said the divorce and sadly and it's simply can't exist to fourteen no one is a new cd so if we go back to the trial court when their theory you've got to go back  here yes ma'am i was just getting ready to address that because if you read their brief they're arguing that this was all  decision that the court wanted to make sure that there was a just and equitable we saw it and interpreted what the judge did in such a fashion now we believe that without the
question is simply what this word means in this context and it isn't necessary it would seem to need listen you see something here to look for some clear manifestation of and tend t that was rejected by the examiner and then we see later in one nine hundred eighty six that applicants arguments directed towards a closed cavity are essentially rejected because there was a support in the disclosure proposed an amendment that would have had a closed cop that's a way that had something beneath it a part of the mitchell perhaps would be a way to say it and that but those are rejected claims twelve's rejected and a closed cup amendment is rejected by the examiner suggesting that the prosecution history also saw that the cup would cavity goes as i understand it between the top and bottom surfaces of the bottom sole therefore it extends all the way from the bottom of the bottom sole which is the bottom sole means the ground  because none of the drawings show anything below the cup when you want to and if it and if you read the prosecution history you gave up a closed cup so indeed if you read all of this language you've just given us in lies the prosecution history it seems to support the reading that should brighten gave to it because the cup cannot be closed to you i gave up on that a man or a ball i don't think i do so your honor engages the ground therefore the cup would be open and that seems to be supported by the prosecution history which says your effort to have a closed cop was rejected by the exam but it is that is the ground contacting question is just the bottom of the upper s invention features a stock absorbent shoe sole a bottom sole is attached to the bottom of the upper sole so all they're saying is that maybe the bottom is in relation to the upper define his claims his claim terms as they wish it's why isn't this his definition right here a saying the bottom as he means it isn't ground contact thing it's just something beneath the effort still does the bottom  identical what do you think is the right way let's assume for a moment that we agree with you that the zero forty six patent conclusively binds mr lawlor to the view that outsold and bottom sold of that fact for analysis of the term bottom so in the three twenty one is in every country matter is it some evidence of what the patent applicant meant soul links that too says the structure is the same he says after my previous invention the language he's describing here is the same language and i think that
credibility issues only legal issues and that is whether or not the board and that is for violating the applicable statutes and regulations without the mckay there are two to review how the law is applied to that evidence or change it was very difficult for me to know exactly what it is you can ask us to do under that standard other than one thing is clear and that is if there is a specifics that suit or regulation that is being challenge to because of its of how you interpret it the statute independent of the fact or regulation that is a challenge because it's inconsistent with this that you i can grasp the review ability at that but in your case i can't find that to your regulation that you are challenging beyond saying that here's a bunch of that and they applied those statutes  i mean i know that's what you read it as saying that guy i'm having trouble finding well there is a reference i noticed at the top of page eight other day ca he sees the court of appeals for veterans claims opinion that refers to the board's concluding mr clay had failed to provide competent evidence of relationship between psychiatric disorder and active military service which may suggest that the evidence on which he relied which included lay evidence was deemed to be not competent and therefore this supposed outweighed decision in the canon and this was decision court of appeals misread our precedents with regard to the use play evidence to prove medical causation and that took place records were apparently lost the day somewhere in the system and so he was put at a considerable disadvantage in being able to  certainly not by name or citation but i think there are some cases in which we have said where the board does something which is to say by hypothesis plainly contrary to a statute or regulation and the court of appeals or veterans claims simply a firms what the board has done without comment but it's clear that they have necessarily adopted the same position with respect to that issue otherwise they couldn't affirm that we we regard that as giving us quezon statement and goes on the board noted that it was not required to accept a doctor's opinion based on the claimant's recitation sample history are we getting into a circular argument where the only war he he he was a perfect position to be able to determine who may get a diagnosis now  observe mr players did dr the bird who treated him for three years had therapy sessions with whom and then he says oh oh my eight years later he says oh i cured of what i said eight years ago opinion based on a review of the medical records with the support of his assertion of that his psychiatric disorder appear sort of and that's part of my argument of the implicitly this constantly
than the statute which this is it is the duty of the poor to rule strongly against the government and in favor of the taxpayer of the taxpayer is given the benefit of the doubt because we know that sometimes and that is for new construction when new construction is actually occupying the recess for take till the end of the year the opposite is true if the building is destroyed or demolished heads taken off the wall from that time till the end of the  but the court said that they have to understand what the compassing is for the statute and there it is very clear it looked at the history of the genesis and the like and it was clear that they were of the form and some of the constitutional questions groaners but there is no principle of statutory construction or statutory interpretation that requires any court to parse a statute that co i don't understand this notion of going forwards in time or back time in which it's impossible for every assessor in the state and in detail to make a determination one day of the year january first which forming until june june first and then developing for real estate development my understanding is that it would qualify assuming that there were farming to prior years in this scenario have the school district three hundred i am just going to talk a little bit about uniformity in case there is any questions you know council when she was after the challenge  one of two thousand and six and based on the sales of comparable properties during the primary year so there's really no uniform for any proud problem in this case at all and there's no due process problem for th well it's hard to fit this into the stash story scheme of looking at the property through june i think it's our side of the case agrees that it's far if any time during two thousand and six  and very good land are intended to do nothing of market based assessments as are the only two i guess it's also open spaces but there are very few categories that the legislature says that you know the thing that's interesting here the general assembly is charge we were claiming that we had a twenty six hundred percent higher assessment and other farmstead therefore we were not being formally treated the court did not accept that argument because nothing to do with the farm classification of the  they will be on bankruptcy door and he cannot have a few only and expect to have been sort of assume a society that honors property rights if you're going to say the government wants a three million dollar assessment
i don't i don't know
i gather it's much more like speculation as well she said i don't recall exactly what happened i supposedly was thrown out of the wheelchair route going down the street the wheel plus the field and down that's that's very different than giving opinion this is what happened because there was a hole in it she was trying to get  had some type of the incident in route or neither of these conditions i do not believe i could blame it on the bo i chose an alternate on my own and i would take the consequences of whatever happened in this situation there were a number of and had passed probably twice before that summer four times before she could've made a wider turn she could've gone the other way she she for some reason or another chose apparently to make a tight turn and w proximity of we look at the proximity of manhattan to the wheelchair ramp itself well we don't really know the proximity we know we know the proselytes of the potholes in relationship to the rest of the sidewalk in the area we the time of the fall share she had no real recollection of the fall until she woke up so we don't know how could she ever got she saw fall she knew paul holmes there from prior experience who we really have no idea as to exactly how close she may have gotten to that she situation but going all the way there was clear evidence that this lady or clear inference that this way he fell in the water her dress was wet one witness saw the water in blood on the floor husband's salt water surrounding her you're using to feel the effects you recover if you have to be within an inch of it if we have no idea how close she was to this defect so i don't even think that we follow that type of thinking that we can confine proximate cause in this situation because she herself if you if you go by mr ganis testimony which is the only testimony on ownership of the property in question mr gamble points to ownership of the property as be the city or the camry but in in reasons not only for closings put in this case used to gamble tough he testified that he relies upon surveys and team for closings to see if there's any incumbrances to make sure that the structures that they think they are buying are on the actual property that he relies upon surveys and looking at them to determine meeting its responsibilities like if anyone hears or ever fans put on the property the usually the fencing contractor wants to look in your survey to determine where  put the fence to make sure it's on the property just because he's not a surveyor doesn't mean that he's shouldn't be allowed to offer up testimony that on issues that he covers every day is part of his job to do it at least doesn't this at least raise the issue of a she sees a pothole and she says she's repeatedly trying to maneuver around it and then someone says yes and then the court says but i don't see how that forms a basis for liability and then a couple lines and sole owner to be more towards the sound of the driver so you're saying the evidence is there was enough room to maneuver supposedly arm around the paddle to access that wheelchair ramp to get her onto the sidewalk she would
zero one that assumes that he or she and the attorney because it's a civil remedy that we've now quite a criminal court and here maybe they understand you discourteous from television because you see more of that but i just finished teaching a three hour course to judges on post conviction there is something there that they're good enough in this case though because he was represented he was his attorney said that he thought the defendant understood great had talk pleader that's the of the guard for if they don't like it anymore they don't have to enforce oh well because it's not it wasn't their doing that we don't have it does that mean that we don't have a valid contract anymore us to this instance situation the facts of people being fair in terms of the procedural and the rules that being dealt with are different in this instance in fearing it discussed on a valid waiver of appeal right now on  substantial compliance which is going to hearing found that there was substantial compliance that he knew that he was waiving those appeal rights there's no one who is their governor and supreme court rules that govern po by something that fearing might might potentially permanent in fearing what the court said was the record needs to make sure that the defendant understands the circumstances the nature of the appeal or collateral proceedings we've heard if the defendant want to write something of that nature depending upon the circumstances of that case that might give rise to the litigation which is before us before this court right now do the defendant have a valid collateral step that would be considered if it's a problem terry and if it's knowing would we then under what does it have to look at the the underlying pleadings to determine if theory is regarding that waiver of the collateral and appellate the credible coat rights on the issues raised under the defendant would be about the voluntariness of that actual plea which is you know at this point that would be is raised here we are looking at it we're seeing at the appellate level we're given the opportunity to raise that issue here it is very clear that the court in layman's terms explained what own is that why you are not enforcing you're part of the bargain there's a number of reasons i believe in people he doesn't the only supreme court said there's a number of reasons that the state may choose to exercise various rights some of it is that this is  case that is old this is a case that it's not as if he pled guilty yesterday and now wants to appeal it there's a number of years of taking place between the time the case and i believe i don't remember the exact by carefully looking at the allegations in the petition and even get sent p c p if it gets to the second stage make a motion to dismiss based upon valid just because these are something that they can the state can enter into doesn't really mean that it isn't such a good idea to do it this case or after there really that's what this comes down to is this is a really bad idea
vast number of the company's products they had been so distribution to connect to the united states is not the same distribution within a particular states particularly the state of illinois simply would request that this court reversed to train manufacturing this notion to crush service and to dismiss manufacturing has been rare but the
car after washington had sat in there for a few minutes he testified that he checked the carbon foreigners no contraband in there and found it afterward so naturally he came from green except the  just i don't know whether i don't know whether he knew the defendant put it there or not so even though washington's testimony on this point also is not contradicted by anything the judge didn't believe that i would say how  trust anything about the defendant's behavior and what he was doing when the officers arrived at the scene were you sort of pick it up after washington confronted the defen
award for only the the one flip up seat for the entire set of seats in the bus oh ok that's what i thought of just  again going back to my first question is i could see an argument that there's a functional relationship between the tie down and the particular seat that flips up or down right in the area of that kind on but how does that tie down i suppose the tie down is in the front of the bus how does that functionally relate to the seat that's in the back of the bus you might want to have for a static reasons or convenience or ease of ordering all the seats from also maybe you could get to them precisely what is the functional relationship i think we've been asking in a different way what precisely is the field functional relationship that ties those with the tied up  the flip up seats you know the way he did it what the judge excluded him to ask a question more clearly was not just the pick seats but also whatever damages would be associated with the the flip six agree that you don't need a fixed seat to make the restraint work right from the horse's mouth the user free path assault is silent about the need for the thick seats in the boss to which let's say by hypothesis you never would have gotten to the customer the customer is very untrue interested in the free infringing device you get you sit down with the customer and then you're just about to conclude the contract you say even on those facts for concluding that a damage award would be appropriate in that situation i reckon if you don't say that you don't think that this case but in what you the proposition that you've laid out for us would include that case that is to say where the customer ultimately agrees to the second product cuts off all damages would you think that that would apply even in my case i was a yes or no when choice to take a different product
thirty two issues that i wish to address to the core of the first one being the application of any d m and as i am to the instant case on a as rare as the insufficient crabbier thing evidence  beat the brains tad refers to participate in a sexual game with the father their cooperation amounted to them seeing and participating with one another into the games and in consider the strategy records they go to show and undermine the credibility of claudia and them a very particular and very important way  whether there is any evidence to support us not to make credibility determinations not to stack up evidence and say that the bet if we were deciding the case our decision would be any it would be different didn't exist you know the state said we're not making an allegation of sexual abuse so therefore we go we don't have it yet at closing argument they do ard that was not only is the definition is extremely bad it can be just about anything really it can be circumstantial evidence it can be a medical report it can certainly be behavior match that seems to seems to show  to come up with a fast allegation of sexual abuse i think that's reasonable and extremely speculative there is absolutely no evidence in the record for that that and you think about a seven year old is going to be for clarity and apart from the fact that d m states it's not necessary for her testimony to come and my understanding and says is that no petition is spam because there was already  fifty children had been taken away from the mother at an earlier time until the family got back and he took the children so before in the family ever ever he had the children in his custody apparently the mother's so that finding that you referred to has to do with a different father the the every race which the guardian referred to as