MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
of the appendix or depictions of what were to be the accused device i dozed in your view accurate depictions of the device that's at issue in this case page twelve in the red brick and page right at the end of the appendix good role do you think the language on column five between like thirty and thirty seven plays in establishing the definition of the are you suggesting then that this language on column five is limited to the person body doesn't include it's only discussing that or watching it but in the broader context of the introduction to these passages which construe the terms generally you shape radio member in a cradle member as defining structures which are distinct single pieces containing word that contain the wills now as i understand it in reading your brief you take issue with the district court's construction of the cradle members having to be a distinct standalone piece with two legs is that correct was recognized recently that different  wrong to construe the cradle member as have as having a as requiring that it have a distinct u shaped standalone for generally speaking though that's the credit that be a fly piece of steel for example being to be in ships for well let me ask you if one agrees with the district court's construction and other words that if one concludes that the cradle member has to grounds on which to do the trial court's judgment can be sustained without the need to read in the limitations of your stance really well treated the former are the la embodiments and all of the various claims that would come within the scope of what's disclosed in the written description that we really are compelled to read that term and even though it's rather conspicuous  shaped device glug shaped device has that is provided by having just a plate through which bolts can be extended or alternatively i suppose welds could be could be used it would serve into claim twenty two how would we resolve this case in your favor looking with respect to claim twenty two in your view i think this sort of carries us into the second tier answer her earlier to my question i e that you are talking about the bulk of the role of the ball and so forth how does that play out if we take substantially well three limitation away from claim twenty two right and in order and then to find that this is a cradle then you have to this surface here assuming it's a plate has to do double duty as both the plate and the second makes the argument he says look let's leave aside the ball well this year he would say there is not in the cute at the hat requires a unitary separate standalone cradle member  unitarians i just one more question do you agree with mr kopp now turning to claim twenty two the last limitation the bolt means for
we have a a one point six acre site or a lot of existing trees or maybe within this area you know we also have some open space right along through this section in open space along through here overall as i said we have five point four acres of
the the end the you know oh oh you know
who don't limit them legally verifying that that's the practical effect of those agreements the finding of the district court was that there was a moral dimension to these agreements that led schools harder found particularly with respect to the claim that he did end up projecting on rebates and commissions the schools as governmental agencies often do with implied or expressed taxes to raise funds to do things they hadn't otherwise my colleagues may not agree and seeking really complex area whether the schools that i trust me what the relationship between the schools and the districts in the but does one have to get there no no just within this one doesn't need to get i thought that was an alternate are human and that seems to be your main argument and i'm interested in that's the main argument here briefly of these people coming up with the number right the issue comes back to what is the structure of the market and what role do the schools play on the one hand we would argue that their role is one that's authorized and delegated by state policy and therefore qualified a the existing and other or the existing incumbent had to do something that was not good from a competitive standpoint like raising prices significantly or diminish its quality or falling on a service that doesn't sound like the kind of burden that companies don't struck down and an act under its review of the word sixty as being in conflict with the california constitution for fear of the act is in conflict with both federal or state constitution was and shouldn't be allowed to he says you can't tell the extent to which they're insecure especially a judge i would submit the judge harbors found nominal damages without making a finding of actual injury or threaten future injury great concern to us that's great concern not to be branded a monopolist as we deal with public officials throughout the country and of course the collateral consequences of being found to be a monopolist or know nothing companies less powerful than microsoft of the world and there is no
this if the insurance companies paid the bet right insurance company would be suffocated under the mortgage right against this homeowner's policy i don't care if you got a mortgage or not whether there's a mortgage gene or not that morning dealing with you one state then say that if there's a mortgage e
a maximum of thirty nine dollars per year yes yes that's correct ok yes if we did that aspect of the remedy do you claim that for taxpayer who has a possible claim of eight or nine figures to the question it's not on the  just clarify a couple of points one is that the standing of the extension statute is that the granting of an extension is automatic among the filing of the extension inquests to three months so that true that there is an estimated tax payment due before august i believe that's correct there was an estimated tax payment due may fifteenth as well as and that has not been a not to my knowledge they told that in normal course it might take three four years for your action in puerto rico courts to come to fruition in which case you'd be holding a judgment so we're looking at least three or four here is how how how do we find three full years in the normal course of litigation we're concerned about the process that's afforded of it again not necessarily assurances that you'll be able to collect on a judgment unless you obtain it is a process dealing with injunctions here and always in an injunction situation you're projecting into the future and we use of probability tests the only way that you and others guilty of harm the magnitude of the harm and we have actual findings here is that it is highly
the design specification which the only design specification that was found was the french t v i'm in the us that experts and clowns are generally can show that it was not possible to meet contract requirements without in place they don't prevail don't have a situation with a number of possibilities that could have satisfied the contract performance requirements one of which potentially may have been having larger pipes impact or allowed to pipes in the existing system and the fact that the initially and the best discretion standard applies ready to the board it may decide to admit this expert testimony in a situation where there was certain timeframes and that was not abuses question and further
fuses filed in rulings made with regard to their tuition is the attorney stuck with the decision of the trial court once a decision is made with regard to the fees under the guidance and the terms of the that issue in the second case a small claims suit that was filed the issues specifically breach of contract on a retainer agreement for recovery of attorneys fees from the the fees for representing the parties in these cases correct and you had concluded your representation so when the probate court ruled you didn't do what he and additional work did you did you then brought to the small claims court or for me the rule in this is in my affidavit based upon what was the size of the state based upon the other fees which repeat are at the same time individually goes the other day and i don't think he would have been jumping up and down saying well wait a minute wait a minute he's not a part of this i think he would we may have been saying wait a minute why is it a case of clarification please but i don't think anybody refundable greenman to you only fifty thousand i'm keeping your fifty thousand dollars sort of a danger to what you're seeing there this could be the issue where the retainer agreement can't form general patrick principles i mean  likable principles i don't think i think it was a case that said you can't get no such thing as a non refundable retainer agreement under all circumstances it would his argument would be a kid that you're saying look you're having this agreement that says no matter what dollars in fees from the guardianship estate that it was because of the fact that there were three attorneys involved because of the size of the estate because of  the factors contained within this guardianship estate now the judge made a finding at the point where these two cases the small claims of the pro with this with this reward of fifteen thousand dollars and feeds him in the guardianship case if it basically preclude me from being able to argue leader
illegal conduct and from america see so if you're looking for the market effects from reasonable suspicion we start with zero and we see nothing in the drawing that lends itself towards so justification for a detention be and what the role of black itself allows for here the defendant approaches stags is  justify all the time  here this wasn't just a critical split second determination which if it had been would perhaps be different but the state in their own briefs in just the several minutes that he was there conversing with him was  to find the action in the d c area of impairment our definition of impairment here is death to the person is consumed any amount of alcohol that reduces their belief think or act with ordinary care person is being taken out of the car for mere consumption there seems to be no doubt in ted least in this attorney's my that nothing more was happening and let's not forget the real world analysis someone's computer a police officer was tall that person has revoked driver's license the person is committing a crime and the the appellant court has suggested that the the officer had to for six weeks given the facts of the case i mean that's why these things are so generous that's why we don't create broad rules based on limited factual circumstances so with all due respect i don't believe this case would  this part is an extension of the original justify detention bed in the corner felt oh that would be an appropriate point in time to say that extended conversation it's not the time element although i do submit there are trying to become its own factor but the movement from the completion of the original basis for the retention having given be completed whether it took an hour we can forget those few minutes as we are you know our brief minutes where the defendant is booming the officers the guests who are much of intoxication those extra few minutes are driving down the reasonable suspicion because of a conversation is taking place why are we to hearing something like his ears the definitive answers were confused he wasn't making any sense i asked him where it's coming from he said purple cow he looked away from me  refused to look at by our eyes he tried to cover himself off apparently there was a very clear and intelligent conversation taking place as one would draw a reasonable inference from the facts which reduces that that thought
believed we agree with daniel is that it should not have happened then is it an issue they should not have occurred they should have been more timely that it's not the end all and be all of our discussion for some judgment in the evidence that was that was offered in those motions for summary judgment you simply have facts that there is no cause of action that could have been planned for and certainly now the cause of action that police are now claiming my client should have tried to exclusively doing this with our i believe the contract you know it is a tradition of the relationship so that's important and i think it was important to underline the case because there were no damages so only five words to a district that was in two thousand and five look at a situation where you get an employee who mandates personality tests for employees that are going to apply for managerial position
sustained my objection this is also came up during the context of the trial in page nineteen twenty eight of the record but there was some sort of reference to the criminal charge of taking judicial notice the first two is the dirt scoop in the first city do all the whatever that means the night so she didn't allow for that and then she goes into
deadline so basically for those three claims said that certainly i disagree respectfully with counsel that the public arena has admitted that there's no contract he said i argued specifically that there was a contract to open bank accounts the type and the manner in which it was done was t breach and again eat it would just be beer simply asking that face commonsense internal procedures that are designed to prevent fraud in these are specific as are designed to prevent fraud they they
he was acting within the scope of this if we were do you have to let some facts as to what he was doing to demonstrate that it prove he was acting  working certainly could lead to the inference that she's there for his convenience his benefit and i'm not asking why she was there i guess if you have  the court also spent a little bit of time i'm some issues that didn't have relevance whether whether she was having an affair or some type of act here with harsher who was employed doesn't have any effect on  of harsher words have an effect on the beauty of humor and almost you almost got the impression that if they were having an affair then there was a different duty towards sin focus on because they might be acting in a manner that's maybe not so perfect but that the court again made several factual determination and again including her book her presence on the property and whether she was of unrelated to the business of my client whatsoever  more than five years after the plaintiff so it's not like there was an opportunity there's a great deal of time yes there was an opportunity to find out that but let me talk about  activity were confined to the interior of the limestone mine the cases that impose alter has or say liable strict liability for all three has effectively all deal with  on your own property where the effects of them are totally confined to one  the the continental continental case that that the one was november or wait and then there was an order in january them dying which the subject of what we're here today and then the motion to reconsider paul i'm sorry
but it's it's my suggestion to this court that this court holds the discretion to not remanded to take it now in a period and to hear it now on its terms under certain  that discretion and then compare it with the aid of smith case in which the supreme court did like that scrushy it recognized that discretion and it took a case that was about to be reman they did indicate that in their reasoning the reason why they were not going to let it be remanded that they felt they could take it at that point was that the firmament if they were to affirm would only result in a mathematical calculation  and i believe it would there's some ambiguity on that to be even painfully honest in my case because the evidence that was put forth as to what his earning could pass and he was to the to the commission is it really asking the commission to give weight to evidence and testimony that it has already deemed to be not credible give weight to it and entered into the best of us we stipulated to what he was what his pre x right earnings were there was no stipulation that i stipulate that he took the job turning down but there was no stipulation that he was relegated to a job without explanation and it's one thing to affirm and adopt that explanation at least you can infer that he does adopt the opinions of he has reversed this decision without explanation we're left only  is relevant to the issue of what he was capable of earning at the time trying oh you don't think there's evidence will what he says and yes new i don't want anyone to gloss over the fact that the arbitrator and the commission by adopting his findings specifically found a vocational expert to be not credible or entire testimony to show wage differential it was determined by the judge to be not credible you're still going to be able to appeal that though that's correct that's correct we appealed and again i
you'd like to come and get one you can come to the side of the stage afterwards and i have one more song for you but make you again for inviting us to name is our learner for sign here and i hope we'll be back next year again thank you
require support to the review might be abuse of discretion so for example i believe it was the whole view of this court that say the section fourteen a one context where parties trying to seek relief from a judgment there are certain stand in the commission is so we would be arbiters case repeatedly the argument is made the court should look at it to know because the commission didn't actually hear the evidence broader then claim that she can personally present broadly and then i devise a subclass all illinois citizens biometric information was collected captured purchased received through trade or otherwise obtained evidence and arguments i believe the next day they decided that they were going to force substitution of judge having taken the temperature of the room we respect this a bit that's greatly improper should set it up for me so that i can go over this rule they didn't do that what they're trying to use his mother will in the briefing the fact that they didn't give him money one has to our beliefs if you will but that's not the issue we all need we defer any more discovery problems with them because we we have enough evidence in the record was clear enough that we knew we could prevail in class  wishes are were you know what it needed this stage of the proceedings i would love to feel them particularly because you know individual questions their wages injury have never been  y are there any more questions in my field on that topic the five thousand separate suv talking about how to spare operate ok and there's no evidence that they provide with respect to that no ok most of the story has come from plaintiffs hundred and fifty plaintiffs of class numbers that were identified that's just the tip of the iceberg as we pointed out there's a heck of a lot of discovered still with respect to the other workers in the work that was just a small slice
say that in that case or in many cases there may there's a reason to deviate from a fifty fifty approach to settle in most cases there is  justification to work in market or worth of that settlement to the injured spouse i think even a working man comprehend the concept of marital property but what the working man can't comprehend in this case but it really is how when they're with everything else nothing changes how does he get thirty eight thousand dollars is a worker's comp self and that you know self doesn't make sense unless you look at how the other factors in or what couple of the cases i think should be mission well i think  an analysis of the man he how did it affect anything else in the judgment of dissolution it is simply a punishment to war if you look at the case the case with one hundred and one thousand five hundred eighteen you still want five thousand dollars more than half so they were worth most of the earth forty five percent of the worker's compensation awar well it gives a forty five percent thirty thousand dollars of his award and he gives up eight that another eight thousand five hundred dollars and still ask that the actual distribution is an abuse of discretion or are you saying that if the trial court intended to order or balance but in effect
the very first page of the world says that before you can get in to filling it out any person who knowingly makes a false statement or misrepresentation on the score will be subject to penalties which may inclu i'm not really confused
very good friends with alice i'm sorry i need to back out you're in your initial remarks did you say that the court did not find i didn't finds no ok i just want to make sure  there was no evidence of any communication between uncle peter as they called him and the attorney who completed this new will and trust document that there was no communication between that we also have the testimony of oshima and members of the titus family and talked about that she overheard a conversation between gene and your client about getting the deceased to the office before he changed his mind we all know that is not sufficient for the court to determine walk to for the court to find that your client had involvement in the procurement of the authorizes attorneys fees like for an executor or something like that and we don't have that here we don't have any statute tory cultures ation for that i mean i was surprised neither council mentioned the american rules on which it is discus him and he would use it to make payments or you know things that he wanted to pay in cash and has just started you indicated earlier i mean the judge heard the witnesses saw the witnesses apparently the judge found that to be considering the fact that mr schumer was well taken care of that he didn't have any physical harm to him that basically she took care of everything for him and for the most part did a good absence of punitive damages dealing with a non executive
you in writing in the very near future
march fourteenth two thousand and seven was correctly the tester saw dr atwater on november twenty first two thousand and six the records of dr hour from that day are silent on the issue of fisher's ability to work  or was also seen by dr o'keefe his shoulder orthopedic doctor and was released without restrictions on march fourteenth two thousand and seven i don't trace fisher did not offer any evidence of subsequent doctor visits indicate he was he was unable to work no there was no medical attached to that works of showing what it was related to or whether he was even seen on or about our history first two thousand disability benefits when that person has been examined by a doctor in over fourteen  months again i would say with respect to the august thirty first off work slip that basically gave you titian or certain restrictions there was never any corresponding office no introduced by petitioner to explain the basis or the purpose of that slip and fell on his back in his neck but the initial injury report initial medical workers don't support that testimony he didn't have any immediate medical treatment on the accident he continued to work all day for two weeks after he fell off the ladder and when he did seek treatment initially it was only for hand arm and shoulder problems the initial records indicate that you thought it was his hand in his wrist and jammed shoulder in fact the fisher filled out of pain chart at st cervical my lap and he finds weakness on his exam findings which here is is at risk and in need surgery immediately he's qualified to say under these circumstances the man couldn't work when i saw him back in november this condition doesn't improve over time it gets worse time so he still can't work at present time in the commission surely found that to be credible and of course as your own is no this is a manifest where the evidence standard and the commission found doctor at wor
i don't think she wants the answer they're not cases you know constitutional issue was appropriately raised clearly greatest whether on the ocean or god we're precluded from even with the constitutional issue being raised we're precluded from considering