course i'm going back to that prejudiced analysis is there a reasonable probability of a different outcome a trial answer is no because of how the evidence was related to trial and because of how defense counsel works without evidence at trial we don't have a legally sufficient evidence in this


government did file a motion to dismiss and the court held that it should have been granted however in that case the government acted in a month after the notice was talk


defendants criminal defendants their parties they're not going to come again they're not going to get the benefit of this rule one way or the other but you will and it's a rule that is very i would think would be contrary to your interests


for the fact by me and by the spirit court judge the state has had met its criteria for adaptive behavior so when the state court in two thousand and fifteen made specific and it's it


are that mr banks was denied medication multiple times you know it's a question of course whether deliberate whether deliberately different those were his allegations but the question is what what is left for a jury to try a particular perspective this issue of a concussion if you accept


jurisdiction is not to be found in the phone and and the jurisdiction is not to be found in statute and in fact there is no claim under any statutory provision that expungement would be


himself itself that single phone call is all that's required and there's no evidence that any three quest for permission would be to not therefore for that reason any assume signification simply doesn't add


individuals entering these restricted areas now it is true m t a has been intelligent in the past and has granted standing permission to union officials to enter the property without providing specific


to bind future ones and that's the constitutional restriction that's put in so to get around that the so that so that it to get around that issue that that has to be moral obligation not a legal obligation because the minute and


of factors in here that affect that obviously not it's a difficult decision for them to make and that brings the next question in line with your line of thinking here is is is this is a court going to start now let me itself and looking behind with the


think is an appropriate one and that is a moral obligation no obligation and we don't think that it is no obligation there certainly is an obligation to the extent that we have a moral obligation here we still have a night there still the idea that


evidence isn't in the court file it's in the public record and the issue is could the british and or have done for your earlier and court after court says that's not our state diligence standard is reasonable under the circumstances were you looking for


the guilford county board of elections job is to do what the what the statutes tell us to do as interpreted by the courts now what were we we did in fact participate in an action two for


it there in terms of appellate court it's ridiculous to say you can just keep him there and then the state doesn't want to give him any more time and then you go back and ask a federal judge what would you could have done if you still could have ahead is


explanation but every other circuit in the country does it a little bit differently this is a unique case there's a lot of the case in this case it was way out of the ordinary so yes b o p mr there was a communication problem as


the power by way of mandate to sort of take away and your honor we can see that going forward after the settles with ice and even as to this district court judge in this sentence he had the authority to do this who are we to say we disagree with the supreme court and your


matter of course raised other grounds that were did not really from the district court that would put it squarely within the hideous action and maybe this you could argue this was piggybacked onto it for jurisdictional but but now we don't think it has any place here so sure we could argue


so to go back to my question your modification would change the district court's order to say i am vacating the state supreme court's determination that he cannot meet this standard and i am


of that state and absent a compelling reason to breach or waive that sovereign immunity state is entitled to claim that immunity and not respond to the third party discovery for what's a compelling reason as i stated before perhaps if the state had


protection flows from the certificate itself from the national historic preservation act and says a c p you are not done with this process it says ongoing activities must be completed before construction must be completed before


like no question national is unlikely has already been done so it has for it's not a subject i mean i got it so what's left is whether or not they need to do these things before they cut trees and i'm saying at this point now while


to go see independent tax if a legal advice or tax advice but that's not an opinion i guess if someone gives you an opinion about something yes you should see him and the countenance and a lawyer but that's not an opinion that's a


particularly with respect to this last instruction that did not not only did not mention no specific contents of the fraud but also failed to mention reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance it


because that the reason they put that in the statute your honor was in one thousand and six the previous version of the statute only said that that liability required knowingly so knowing action and there had been courts that


permission mr sumburgh was to may of two thousand and seventeen and that's explicitly stated in the email she said we need we need a letter for immigration and


intent to permanently abandoned the prior habitual residence residence it can be for a limited period of time as for this court recognized in the case so and remember you have to look at


admitted that everyone has agreed that it's an object of standard based on the case an objective standard only and your argument you subjectively that these internal rules required oh man two cases


competitive interest what is the possibility of competition looking at the market looking at the distance as one factor of many and the point that i was going to make is that while


talk about that one because i had some issues with that two weeks ago but trust me i


things so it's not just a matter of if eventually this is going to happen the question is whether or not the nation and the protection of his properties and property owner's property and all those things are factors in those things are still moving parts correct fergus challenged it in


in looking at the materials it seems to me two years is plenty of time based on the statements the government has made specter shipping plutonium take what sixty six to twelve months to package it and then you put on some


go to a court is ask the court make a judgment call and the question is how much discretion did the court have and the district court may have cabined its view of its authority too much such that it did something that in its discretion it


want i want you to understand and i've already said this i very much appreciate the difficulties in the task that the agency has and the sensitivity with what we're dealing with on dealing with the tony and


pointing to as a predicate not the government not the probation office not the court that it was up to the petitioner at that moment to say here's this conviction no one's talking about it but just in case i want to argue it's not a crime of violence and that his failure to do that means he can't


expand disclosures in the public disclosures and in a civil hearing to include the attorney client communications that occur prior to the hearing and and they're saying the


did not derive any of the information used in the current version of the complaint with these relate or years from the initial redcliffe comply


twilight anesthesia right so the impasse and we've addressed this and what do you think is the the point of that make sure i understand is that nobody would do it under the circumstance when i was only one surgeon available locally and he wouldn't do


opportunity to write that the first time and chose not to write so help me understand that question right why we shouldn't defer to the a l j we've had lots of discussions about deference to fact finders today in


an annual survey that she happened to get selected a random sample and the surveyor interviewed him and it's not clear you know when if ever the president would have received this procedure had not the surveyor's intervened and that's very


the critical point here is that they erred in concluding that the nursing home was in compliance for the first five months after the president had the oral surgery consol


erosion control measures of seventy eight percent at basle be overstated and this case the forest service except that a model that assumed ninety six percent efficiency for a single line of erosion control measures meaning put up more


congress through the natural gas act and ultimately to private parties of the governmental power of eminent domain and if we get to the end of this whole thing and a court determines wait a minute you didn't have the power in the first place to give the power of eminent domain then


exists by dinner for cation you mean saying that they're the they're the party nominee even the party no there's no way to do that you mean if the party wanted to caucus and select a candidate could they


challenge you're right it was and i will i will tell you that the the most artful elimination of this issue appears in that dissent we will not find it acceptable if we


was correct in the st time the district court went to the sentencing and i don't think that's accurate i think number one the government has forfeited that argument and agreed in this briefing that the district judge did in this case did apply the wrong guidelines range so to the


recommend a full neurological evaluation and where was that i think there was a particular evidence regarding seizures is that in the record that evidence is in the record and dr wood's report your honor but the evidence was originally


you and so you must implicitly acknowledge it as if the second seven circuit case is right you've got a problem not necessarily because i think it's distinguishable on other grounds and while at the seventh circuit said was we have a policy here


treatment because you have some other medical exclusion you were denied treatment because your doctors don't think this treatment is appropriate for you he says nothing whatsoever to respond to gordon's contention that he was denied h p v treatments only for that reason and instead he simply says quote there is no


jordan's testimony was about what her pastor told her about following the law which your honor as you just point out would be what the trial judge said so the natural effect of that conversation of this communication with the pastor to


that was sent to them september seventeenth and our client says in his deposition had i known that it was field you are thirteenth i would have checked before because he quoted the timing he says that his deposition so he detrimental relied on their


so there's only a few there i mean there's there's very few things that relate to a bridge for you sherry duty one of them is aiding and abetting you're going to produce your duty and it's got to be right duties and obligations not just duty there's got to be what are the rights


breached or implicated by the city's alleged failure to keep the manhole cover on the on the on the adjacent sewer which is what's being alleged here this


so you understand that there's still a dispute about that here it didn't appear in oral argument today that petitioner was contesting that there was an inconsistency or that he was admitting that those statements were inconsistent with what was presented


make inconsistent statements and that is not there there also might be evidence in the record that petitioners testimony was overall confused or confusing where is that's not the case the petitioner was able to respond to


time arguing it doesn't matter what those controlled substances you know our i'm a merely responding to essentially the decision of the board of immigration appeals which first said you know made this alleged divisibility analysis and found the statute


in fact ignore or fail to disclose certain information that is relevant to your tax liability it would be as if they were sent ten ninety nine or a letter from the opposing side saying we paid you sixteen point


holland's those two positions can be eliminated what if any government is there in the record as to discriminant age discriminatory comments mr hollande might have made at that time when he said all right we'll get rid of these two positions


two when it when it exists and that's the general holding of the famous a supreme court of helicopter arrows for his haul in this case we do have specific jurisdiction but i think we also have general jurisdiction because not only did


that means any claim that there should be additional warning at the crossing is preempted as a matter of federal law you read shanklin to say that if any federal monies are expended with any warning sign at that point all failure


to overcome summary judgment and the answer to that question is there enough evidence is known or double no since there's actually two independent grounds on which the summary judgment can be affirmed in this case so the


just all right so so i think that we've we've we've covered some of the evidence of actual notice one thing we haven't talked about are the pallets and basically with that with the pallets we have and we have a plane if we used to work at wal mart a number of years ago


if there is a recording ban which is justified by overriding employer interest that's just totally lawful that was the case and played staff where it was both more narrowly tailored because it prohibited taking photographs of patients or other areas in the


board itself says they should be analyzed under the wood standard none of these policies mention wage or personnel information flex practice courts other case beyond arkham of that dealt with these issues


screening places to determine if injunctive relief is available you don't look at the marriage you look and see if it's available here district judge or the magistrate determined there's no cost you should violation well there's no constitutional violation you can't


of injury the hotel was in a different position than in c h instigators only selling chemicals to hotels determining what chemicals they want to use they're the ones that are actually using the chemicals in the


balance in your honor again there was no proof the judge did not make a finding of actual knowledge just a suspicion of knowledge that there was apparently a union organizer doing something in the hotel but then opposite that you have the


he testified at trial that he was worth a hundred million and that he had twenty million dollars of investable funds beyond that there's no indication of sources in the shipping business he brokers ships he hires


mean it's got to be something it's got to be categorized somehow i would you categorize you try to say it was a loan is that are you still standing by the well the chance or the first question the court never defined misappropriation the way that it's


chilling effect on the unit as a whole and not allow the unions a whole to present the other side so we think that was first of all there is well thank you for your me


flows from that claim in the type of damages that flow from that claim now we did take the position and our response that phase one because of the basically case contemn should be not only the substance claims but extra


have to address that issue but we were not allowed to put on evidence in my view in the breach of contract claim that there was no arguable basis for denial we were allowed to demonstrate that they breached the contract that they under paid but we were


also let me see if i can get a puts i don't have a purpose i don't have a pacific site but it's two thousand and thirteen one fifty four cow reporter third for forty three


go to you know close your eyes cross your finger say a prayer and hope it doesn't happen to you you can't you can't put a cockup at that risk we want to make sure that it wouldn't happen and it's at least possible that if those thoughts of suspenders one place that could


sex couples are entitled to quote equal dignity in the eyes of the law in quote and this statute by announcing that people can discriminate against same sex couples


board of the mississippi department of environmental quality and notably in their complaint they do not allege that they couldn't do that they had the opportunity to do that they chose not to and so the state


sorry your honor that i have long thought that there was nothing unique at this point in time that had happened to people already but as the briefs certainly demonstrated and as you know the the


of fashion address and they said well you can't set aside jurisdiction for jurors you know for judicial economy it's too important you can refile you can go subtle but you have


the area that they were within ten to eleven feet in the officer that the car would be toward the officer in that case the officer couldn't say whether he shot before during or as he was going by a body shop because he reasonably object we felt like he


dr if we told you that mr worthy experienced this here at bollinger as well as this for seven weeks at thomas c did that all contribute to his condition and the answer was yes


march the twenty third twenty fourth twenty eleven more than one year after he saw dr boucher on the twenty second bolland you would be in here saying your claims prescribed you are aware of your disease being related


there that he didn't know about the complaint at the time it had not been following it the only thing that changed from that guarantee of safety in the week later her being fired the only thing that changed was that she went to the e


patients from smoking it was part of the general plan for to what they call tobacco secession the legislature had begin to cut the budget towards stopping tobacco usage so they knew this was coming on and they had told


a broad reading in the short order well he said it us to be brought out i mean what i mean this is in whether there can be a draw on an inference of intentional discrimination your honor one of the things that we can look at when we look at the whole of this document


noted that based on the percentage of the district court conveyed this to counsel during the hearing that based on the percentages it's it's understood that it's some percentage of african americans voted for the for the current flight so to these to the extent


contract to procure insurance that's part of the court's order in the record page forty three nine with all due respect to the court that statement is is incorrect in our response to the motion for summary


shows what sunrise did in why it was reasonable this was a lease purchase agreement and emerald coast was going to sell this property lock stock and barrel for four point six million dollars so it was


due process claim that you're trying to raise and that was raised before the correct not explicitly against in saying that the that the rules were not followed and that the rebuttal the affidavit of


cases this case falls under the baker versus mcallen line of cases talking about the liberty interest in freedom from pretrial detention that the issue here really isn't a joliet issue that case resolved


the next case for today is two thousand and sixteen six zero four four eight exxon mobil pipeline company versus united states department of transportation at all


to buy them so while he was doing it and when the agency says this is what you can do to determine this key fact in the regulation that we're not telling you the regulation then if you do it you cannot be held to have violated


back in illegally the order was reinstated filed a motion to reopen and the question before the court was what jurisdiction is the court have over the executed removal order the court found that that motion to reopen was a quote


address so the written requirement is key because otherwise there could be as in this case conflicting accounts of what was said to whom and when and there's a lot of ambiguity that that a written address requirement


from region to region and even to the extent that they were to look at what they've done here and have an informed future sipper all makings that doesn't distinguish this from any other set and we know from the language of three of seventy one that the default rule is that


conflicting inconsistent positions e p a says two circuits is dispositive but we pointed to the michigan minnesota example where there were two states in two circuits and e p a supportive review in the original courts just last week e p a issued another


that it appeared that the reasonable progress goals of the met but once that was based on several factors including the recession and reduced emissions it was based on that the media logical conditions at the time it wasn't based on in forcible permanent reductions in emissions so that could change if


please could you please go through the determinations and tell us which ones have nationwide scope or effect of the actual determinations that are part of the rule making i would disagree with that framework that it's a you know each particular decision on a different element of the


be submitted to the f d a because it hadn't yet been verified in the simplest possible way so when they told investors that this was transformational data from a robust double boiler proceed controlled phase two trial they knew


tribes and non indian lessees again neither of which are party to this case and there may be a situation where d w a can bring a suit or the tree the tribe or a nonparty indian lessee can bring a suit against


the doctor's orders and i'll tell you this is that this is a quote from from the the company's pulses registered dieticians are prohibited from accepting writing transcribing or altering patient


of course congress could have swept tribal entities into dot franka could he use a different word or could he use the same words any persons but defined is one of the definitions of person in the act an entity an entity absolute


briefs that i think you should look at it's page fifteen of our opening brief because that is you judge by statute after statute in which congress has used words like entity or corporation or company and still go on to say person doesn't just mean


congress when they want to include the sovereign or we want to include the tribe does so she then said what's your case california the california case that from just a stone california case doesn't even use the word persons in it if that's the best they got they got nothing at all


different i don't know how i don't know what the court means what we might we may try to mean isn't that what with the prejudice of not raising it earlier you have to you know you have to but i'd like you to show me a concrete example of how you were prejudiced by not being raised


aircraft with national or next going to do a deal with united airlines for fifteen planes and we want all of that those profits to know it was the damages that naturally flowed between this contract between


three things on the office profits first that global would have been able to secure financing necessary to purchase the aircraft and that goes back to the questions that judge ferris was asking me how many aircraft were there are so global already had


now after that point in time if he is found to be guilty of a crime then he is indicted and tried and convicted as an american citizen and he's a pace is due if he's convicted in our you know a


sort of has a taping scared a little bit and you've got beltran coming in and saying to him are


some evidence on it it may suggest that yet it's another illustration of where this kind of you know you say that because that's what you need to say to keep him there and if you'll say that to keep him there why wouldn't you say some of the other things that were necessary to dispel


comply with this rule and as a result the proper remedy is to ensure that the claim be considered on the merits and i think your mind the court that's all we're asking the district below in this court to do we're not asking right now for fed ex to pay the claim we're just asking


the breach of contract the statue of limitations does not begin to run upon the breach that is the law that the district court relied on is the law that booz allen has proffered here and it is incorrect under california law specifically mccaskey the statute of


primary purpose of the plan is the main focus i'm just curious as to what the proper stand that is by which we evaluate this and that's that is a matter of law can it not be applied by the district court as a matter of law by balance he would have the fact there's


received settlement money for his client who is being sued they got money on the cross complaint and they got money from other carriers and then their allegation is and he kept some of those settlement monies over and above the amount that they paid him


east they all end up at the same place which is a basic compromise you got your originals back government got copies let's all go about our business that's essentially what the district court countenanced in this case that is the appropriate resolution and even if the court another way the court can do it is they can


definitely a logical but i don't see where the court has any authority i mean even though we've said that the court retains the authority to revoke or only the court can revoke a certificate even that has to be at the at the motion of a u s attorney under certain


believe his version of events but whether or not they believe his version of events is unknown i guess i'm going to quarrel


it please the court lorne crop on behalf of the a pelleas defendant county of los angeles and the individual county defendants and like to start by addressing the jury instruction issue and by pointing to the fact that your honour's analysis i


as if i'm looking at the correct powell power versus an house or bush was in it's violence on november third two thousand and eleven yes that's after the district courts referral to arbitration yes and i think that would have been a valid motion for reconsideration that so the time ok and because


packaging to comply with its contract with the d o d or any other governmental entity correct except our position is it's an intended beneficiary only because of the fact it's the only one that could do it if you have any case law sorry but just to


and that's what i was completely false at any time you mean she doesn't have a history of she has no history of drug or alcohol abuse the county of los angeles itself in the investigation in a prior case concluded itself there was no


lopping off everything that you say is unconscionable i understand your other argument leaves us with this one that's what i get is not true i'm not sure it is true and i want to placeholder come back to it that is not the only reason for the district courts right but i didn't know i'm asking that question on that particular


but there's murders no there's no paperwork requirement that's filled out that's i mean and that you just time you fill out a card saying that i'm authorizing the following individuals to be allowed to pick up my child to policy the school or that person has to


on the chest when and as to the other two wounds dr sherry looked at photographs and offered an independent opinion as to the presence of stippling with respect to the chest wound dr sherry was never asked and never offered any independent opinion as to


that perspective this this testimony that came in actually was harmful because it arguably contradicted sions testimony as to why he acted in self defense unless your honour's have further questions at this time i'll reserve my second


claims that are failed regulation is invalid in all are essentially all of it that locations and as applied claims that hinge on some unique aspect of the particular plaintiffs or the case that's clearly not what it was getting at because if it was see what is wrong with


challenging what was said back in may he said your honor to address the first part of your question first i don't think that it is fair to say that the one nine hundred eighty seven rule as


that area that the agency would have to keep this program going with the protections you've got for a thousand years could not trauma know the program so the


doesn't seem to me that there's much difference between the standards for a civil and a criminal detainee if anything this man got laughs as a civil detainee do you think there's a separate classification


thirteen f one also has a provision controlling the timing and that is when the contribution plane can be made it's pretty flexible it says the contribution claim can be made


decided not to do so it's also simply not accurate portray whitaker here as some willing participant in a clean up operation we're whitaker defaulted on its obligations to the state to clean up this site and it's


talk about the to the process but i just didn't have the time to do it ok and what would miss kim have given you in a deposition and i'm here then to let you speculate in an optimistic sort of way what it what did you hope


conceding that that any element of mr present taishan is not fulfilled by omission that it we're talking about affirmative act we did specifically say that we're not having we're not proceeding under an omission theory


offer which ultimately i will point out is what happened with the laptop that ultimately mr tarr water purchase that was part of the case that was the subject of discussion in the case but but that wasn't going to take place


together just as long as it doesn't benefit us or just as long as it's not in association with us that simply doesn't make sense the jury wouldn't have given any weight to that argument and it was countered by the fact that they were calling out


that there's this in under five a line that permits them to roust about people in the apartment in order to end quote secure the situation in quotes they and this is a key fact and we're talking our articulable


what you're saying here the fact that they've said that you can use this right away when you get a permit doesn't mean that they're using it without a permit right in other words right now as authorized if you weren't


have what you present is so weak that you know it's really different than what we normally see which are sitting under abuse of discretion you know because we don't believe that the court applied octane fitness and we think they


saying ok now we're done ok we're good we're good to go and let's go we're going to start making changes and we're going to start demanding that atlantis i and demanded that atlantis make changes and


last version and then the response to that is the final version looks fine we could i just delete it couple couple of very minor alterations yes and does that create a travel issue of fact no your honor it does not and


you know generally ah but why did he say that i mean the bottom line is the district court dismissed the case without prejudice and then he said and that was to say you can come back and then he said


and i trust law so to the extent that we have statements in the ninth circuit and i realize it's a district court it goes absolutely opposite of learmonth it says we've looked at these issues we've looked at how much we're importing


in declaration that he understood an oral contract existed based upon communications the communications unfortunately nobody was able to testify you know i said this he said that


their expert was so credible no jury could find him unbelievable and that our experts were completely incredible they can't get there with respect to the i don't want to give the pending motion because it is pending but i do want to say


material facts in this case the veterans court relied upon what it referred to as a rational basis for the medical opinion in this court a rational basis and a medical opinion does not equate to an analysis of the accepted


the second instance with them claim twelve and twenty five is where the dispute before this court arises is our position as some of the questions indicated that there was a waiver below it was never articulated below that there was a context specific read within


combine that's exactly right and yes and in fact their expert never disputed that there was this motivation to combine and even their experts didn't even dispute that the reason why the e p a was used in


violation again we're talking about conduct that was not taken to leave him improper we're not talking about lives we're not talking about bob kerrey or anything of that nature we're talking about


secretary of their force personnel board issued their final determination april sixteenth two thousand and nine after going through two stages of the informal physical evaluation board and the discharge


it doesn't become drove a's until after you start having seizures we don't know how many people there are who have her particular mutation and don't enter absolutely normal we do know that the parents of children who have sodium channel mutations where they do


meant to use and strength requirements i was talking about the mandates that congress said that the force couldn't exceed a certain level in this case by by end of the fiscal year right which is why i believe that the mandated release date was


they have standing just on the show of a an injury you know concrete particularized actual imminent injury in fact so anyone who was to to bring that to have standing they would have to show at a minimum that


and you would have used the same terminology but if it's describing a particular product and it's not i don't i don't know how you import that into the specification politically where it's a district court found and nobody disputes that very high it's not a term


receiving instructions for controlling the initial transmission to the recipient this problem judge toronto has just pointed to is not unfamiliar with and that we have and perhaps the solicitor's


somehow that again your declaration is off limits entirely on green and and that it was not something that you know talked about a charge or counsel was entitled to refer to the certainly nothing in the court's prior opinion that suggests that and it's zero one actually thought that were the


and sellers can come to this website and use the process and what it says to the bitter towards you can you can bid on a number you're willing to pay for these original issue ones either by sending your number in


is i mean there could be active usual rules i suppose applied to that but i don't do that i guess if i guess across medical was now that i'm thinking about it was an apparatus claim where one element of the apparatus


knowledge requirement is imported into any action brought for violation of one of those strict liability towards if the accused tortfeasor is to be charged with not only his own conduct but


that we work that this is is where we are today that nine years later we're arguing this case before the federal circuit to try to get a patent that we believe should have been proceeded to grant very quickly when we filed in two thousand and three exactly because very similar claims were allowed and they


in fact didn't know how to separate it themselves into more importantly and tell anyone how to do it does this mean that you don't agree with the sun argument which we heard a minute ago that claimed that the patent doesn't disclose here


only documents that the judge said he relied on in making his conclusion and my only concedes that those were incomplete representation of the accused product at the very least the judge could have called for asked for the


right but i again i know that that our expert looked at the documents interpreted the documents i think you're exactly right there and that's what that's why we should have had a trial he says i understand what this document is teaching in this doctrine is teaching that the functionality is hardwired


i believe it's environmentally


determination of whether the application is complete enough to begin the review process prior to that no one individual knows whether all the data is there no one individual knows what the approved what the


jurisdiction we believe correctly analyze that issue and recognize them as the damage to be civil service reform act scheme mirrors that of title seven in there and just like with title seven there's nothing that in the statute that that precludes


the litigation takes place is not competent to provide full relief and then this exception section twenty six says under those circumstances there would be no bar to a second action in the second tribunals


time frame when mr gordon was saying these people this is before the americans with disabilities act as you saw g e he was not able to start work at g e because he failed that test be possibly did not want to be on insulin because that would be in his medical


act held that it would last subject matter jurisdiction over the canadian publisher because there were no acts within the us that took place the a circuit affirmed on different grounds so whether or not


we'll put the da r legend on it we'll sign the m o you will do whatever you want they do it and then the course of conduct proceed they send more stuff to different army labs are involved in evaluating it in the end natick ends up doing most of the work


defendants had a motion for summary judgment inability to prove damages latches and inability to prove damages and so we presented evidence of the commercial success and of damages


trier determining from all of these pieces of evidence that you referred to statements comments and cetera and having to make a factual determination as to whether or not this


in the joint appendix the record shows that the parties had a resolution as to money for this agreement in january of one thousand nine hundred ninety four but that they were still discussing in may


mister chase card here that insists two hundred years nobody puts memorabilia on this thing somebody comes up with that idea and you don't acknowledge it well they didn't have chase cards until nineteen


wittier fully solved that problem back to what he says it should certainly doesn't make much sense to me to slice up roger maris as bat that things bastard value was a bad why am i going to slice it up into little pieces


one fifty six see require a new record that could have been discovered earlier no your honor it requires a record that was not previously considered in the v


remedy for past infringement and quote to prevent a party quote from one fairly capitalizing on its infringement and quote finally tivo


no if if the twenty nine questions have all been answered and then he related questions the recurring to the interviewing agents have also been answered and therefore the written document is one hundred


her judgment based on that how is that different from what happened in shoe we're assuming there was a determination of lack of respect for what's the difference well for i think there's a difference in the way the rules are


quite as does have all the elements tied together on a platform and in fact they were totally opposite they told the head office action that the prior art none of the prior art had ever tied together all of


we say prior existing right to grant future seven licenses and i hard pressed to discern a principle distinction between the two as wrong as the cures


a licensee is that exclusive licensee only if it has the patent to use prawns and all others shall be excluded from practicing the invention within the licensees territory or fee which


discuss some fundamental issues and the question i have is does the do the agreement has a royalty obligation and the question is does that royalty obligates


more involved in this issue and realized the issue when i read the all flex case when getting ready for argument because it seems that they did that at least there should have been some recognition of an obligation to notify


no infringement the testimony that they're relying on for visual comparison dr are speaking visually impaired the shape guy with the dentist by proxy her testimony was that seventeen of the twenty six


had severely underpinned this contract however when terminated for the convenience of the government they were entitled to their costs and so alternately even though they did approximately two point two million dollars worth of contract


ourselves well what kind of a centering command because it's in the passive voice and doesn't tell us and we find out that they have dependent claims that say it can be manual so evidently the independent


entitle to have the examiner tell you what's wrong with it so that you can come in and fix it if in fact there is something wrong with it during the prosecution the applicant can submit additional evidence to identify what precisely find


there are a lot of actions that come up in different times in the course of the transom of which make their way to go courts of appeals in which the judge just overrules the objection to that giving a speaking explanation of why are we putting it in jim hall


of the reasons why the judge chose that particular sentence he considered the a warrant to disparity because the evidence showed clearly there junk that in the wall when the leaders met each hand and this


judge in response to an objection overrules it continues a lot of inquiry got where he is in his availability that day saying that it goes to credibility the d just think continues the questions they press on for seven more questions even beyond


authenticated it but fischer's own counsel's tells immigration judge essentially i am sure counsel will follow up with this i will ask so and i'm on these pages where exactly are you reading from transcript pages or


she says the absence of the brother of his failure to testify severely undercuts his testimony but she's now holding it against him now for not having made some motion between the time she says the record is closed and the


decades that the policy with the excess clause has no defense or indemnity obligations on the set of facts and that's consistent with the most recent pronouncements of the second circuit case and the very recent pronouncement of the new york court of appeals questions


contractor operations so when a contractor goes to a site and spreads native materials out there contaminated or not that's not within the scope of their pollution exclusion and the record has strong support that jim and i knew that from the beginning we have at


to leave her husband here in the united states and therefore we can't we can't decide that she is a member the particular social group of women unable to and that's that relationship but he makes a mistake here in that the issue


danger from her ex husband if she is returned to mexico so there off there is evidence there showing there is an inclination of harm he didn't at least didn't mention those in the in the decision he made and then again the


on to file an appeal of the denial of his asylum application it looks like in his his declaration accompanying his motion to reopen mr maldonado allege that he


case did not invite that comment which in effect is vouching by a prosecutor having been an ex prosecutor and i believe that somebody on the court was also it


the rule the ability to extend their stay for another hundred twenty days and i think it is in terms of word law when you were asking earlier about the effective date i don't have the actual


death so he did it may not have been based on the following eight pieces of evidence maybe not as detail but he very clearly did tell the jury this is why i think it's appropriate


all murder is qualified for the death penalty as you know there must be a special circumstance and he explains that in this case it's right but then he says but not all people that qualify for the death penalty should get the death penalty


transpired prior to him hitting the witness stand in the six or seven days or eight days before he did what we do know is that besides the fact that the


that would submit every port submitted by the forensic examiner and i don't know what to do with that would've let me try again ok where is there any evidence that ms will not the document examiner


in six zero six d it means citizens because fica taxes and the social security benefits when you're outside the united states are only available to suit if that's what residents are not alien cause means citizens or residents


to go to the bank because it was at the bank that they would actually pay the chinese government the fine to get it done so the bank was merely a place to pay the fine itself and they couldn't largely do that at the police station so that's why the


on a space neck but if you go to the testimony on page one each one twenty four of the record all he testifies to is that i had bruising on my chest and stomach and so the medical report here does not at all substantiate that these


injuries that he had you know he allegedly you know received at the hands of the chinese police are indeed true but these are the only issues that are contained in the record here we i also have a letter going back to the idea the documentary evidence really is where this


has to do with a significant conservation benefit or important research or concern for individual birds they all have to do with an activity directed towards migratory birds and that's why in till this permit issued


justification is satisfied it's all of the things you just mentioned as well as the fact that the fisheries congressionally authorized enabled if so economics congressional mandate also


i think there's one more question to you have one more the only other thing was counsel's comment that definitely understood something had to happen well yes something had to happen and referee surely had made clear what had happened that if mr news refused to come in bring the supervisor


that's a slightly different question which is why i asked if you knew the answer to whether it be enhanced the regulation has been repealed yes new regulations are in place so i take it that any future violation he may pick up that's the


that's just one of them there was no evidence of prosecution in fact the fact that he was arrested and then released only makes it more dangerous for my client then how do you never been arrested so it's the arrest itself which creates and a heightened danger to my client and


for disregarding the opinions of dr who even more not she yes he she gave one which was that it was inconsistent with the objective medical evidence that's what she said in the


court of appeal the state court of appeal there issued this decision did not address the federal constitutional claims they merely address the solely on state grounds their conclusions as


garcia saying well now i want briefing on ineffective assistance of counsel and that's my first sentence and my brief in response was well we didn't get to have a hearing after this so i would ask for a hearing but here is my


employee any one of them enough of the hotel or the swimming pool operators to pick up that the stress within a minute with thirty seconds or ten twenty or even under two minutes it would simply did not matter was no struggling if every time somebody goes underwater is that is the hotel


there was nothing in terms of the c c t v system the minute mr freeman saw that there was a bunch of people gathered at the edge of the pool he realized that there was a problem there


counsel throughout the transactions they had a greater ability to examine them is there is there a risk in any given possible transaction there is always some risk but i don't


that is true question thank you it does count your honor but does it not enough well the question is does it compel a finding of past persecution and as this court stated it or held in maine she versus holder in two thousand and fourteen even a forced abortion and a


custody that also is not analogous to moving from one prison housing unit to another prison housing unit which could also still be very restrictive apart from the shu there's administrative segregation level for institutions it's not analogous to the type of quantum


argument that the initial immigration judge denied it just in or due process when he was at his first deportation proceeding and it was an artful but that was the notary's having to raise the argument of denial of due process that he


loss that's what gets us to we don't have to prove all eighty five of wagner's dirty loans that went from he ball up his merrill lynch account he'd walk


i i understand your point i think however if you look at you know cases like garcia martinez versus ashcroft a two thousand and four case it notes the


intentional application of physical force against another person her own selena looked at the california home with a firearm and on that the plain language of that statute matched both definitions of an aggravated felony crime of


violence at sixteen and sixteen b and found that the stated mens rea for california salt and people versus williams quote closely track the language of sixteen b by naturally involving a person acting and just regard the


likelihood of me misidentifying my husband isn't great i'm likelihood of identifying someone that you know is maybe not your husband but isn't as great as if this were a stranger identification document that he identified mr monk as the shooter


penalty for the crime based on the fact that the government has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt it's should be the defendants


testimony he makes no signal or gesture to the police officer that he's complying that he's going to pull over that he's just trying to get to a safe area he just keeps going his testimony which we have to accept as true is that he saw these lights behind him didn't know


showed up it was undisputed that he was in uniform he was in a police car the conduct of my client was clearly reasonable he showed up in a situation where there's one police officer one person in a defensive posture not getting out of the vehicle when he pepper sprayed


point nothing so at the time then mr cord darrow had put down his phone and again he was asked to get out of the car and he refused the gun was drawn the timing of it shows that there was no threat they want to say that there his hands are in the car he couldn't grab


terminations if the i g finds the respondent or petitioner credible it's presumed that everything he says is true so in this case he was found credible in a pre real id i case everything has been said is


say that that's an alternative argument you're advancing which one that it should be best impactor for improper facts right that's an alternative argument correct however we would find that you know based on his credible


in the b i i stopped at the word malice in the california statute and that was inappropriate the california statute and there has been case law the discusses the need to look into the statutory scheme


certainly the attorney general seem to me would have a question or two gentlemen see of the charitable deduction if the money which is given and passed back to the contributors but we already have two and we do


imagine the voters got separate rules a hero the other reason it doesn't ask adequately deal with our problem exists how does the registry use the information that they get now from other sources


so sheppard was not in play and i would like to halt now and reserve my two minutes


describes re entry trials there are a long form change of plea there really isn't much much decided in the main case either i mean the guy sitting here next i did try the case but usually he's sitting there next to me and the agent shows deportation papers and what else you're going


called honestly airport she says it's not her but in fact it was well then it turns out well yeah then i think that evidence comes in to these are valid passport and it's her but then i don't


there is no legitimate reason to believe that the this court would have imposed a materially different sentence so we have that and i'm prepared to argue the competency i don't know that the court wants to hear that we have unanimous opinions from both doctors as well as


contradict it the government's evidence when in fact the government has the ultimate burden of proof and the defense has no burden to present any evidence and all the government has presented was an officer testifying that the individual


focus on in that scenario is what is the knowledge of the officer strains million the information not the knowledge of the officer receiving the information and actually making the stop and base of the case will recognize reality that


court has found that it's very


the opinion laid out in the rule sixteen compliance and not getting that it can be viewed as a sanction it could be viewed as part of the court's inherent power but it is certainly not a usurpation justifying the so called drastic remedy of mandamus


absolutely possible and in fact that they should have included the date whether it was when she started working at the bank which is in march of one nine hundred ninety eight or when the money began to be missing which i believe was in in march one thousand nine hundred nine through two thousand and one that there should have been the relevant dates and the documents prior to those


and and not just some of the items but the items that really called for seizure of almost every piece of paper off the letter utility bills think ation receipts bank bank documents i r s forms they're completely irrelevant to the case i'd like to reserve


of the only mistakes in that we were required although it's been characterized differently by the movements of the discourse we were required to seek these warrants and to litigate these issues in the just districts where we did with the possible


so i'm not sure that the government's concession doesn't necessarily mean anything well the argument i've made the argument is ok so i understand your argument if you and i don't want to


magistrate judge all together and they said having looked through the information here is the case agent that's in this computer system i see one hundred four other names with positive records what do you do mr peters what do we do with the fact that that the copy is now in


thirteen twenty four eight two and become valentini with aggravating circumstances but why this is important why this is important is that if this court doesn't hold the government


an alien to the united states even if you take it to a designated port if you don't have permission but that's just a misdemeanor thirteen twenty four a one a one focuses on the nation as long as you take it


five as far as this conviction is concerned counsel says the defendant although he pled guilty in a disjointed is bound also by his counsel's relation to the police report which shows in fact he did


wasn't an expert an expert a child forensic psychologist psychiatrist with a board certified in fact who would interview petitioner and came to the conclusion that he could not form the intent to rob or murder that he could his mental state wasn't


jacket and i'm wondering just how significant that is let me know not all motorcycle riders almost were large leather jackets and that uniform it is your honor and i think that was the only fact we were presented with that the person on a


cause individualized probable cause as i said to him that's right that's my first point i'm also going to be arguing about exigent circumstances there's no question that the police learned through investigation that the robbers were in the immediate


and the jury verdict should be affirmed i have a couple more questions a couple of minutes if there are any questions i don't see any thank you council for your argument thank


and and we could have we could the defense could have at that point attacked the thoroughness of the government's investigation because it had had chosen not to to associate those particular bank robberies not have been


british correctly and that's not going to help the agents say grace this traces back to the september two thousand robber wait a minute i don't understand your saying that two witnesses to use one of them didn't pick up


saying is we he was just the strength of your case yes she was convicted of having whoever committed that robbery and she was convicted of doing it again but in assessing the strength of your case when she was arrested she didn't have a gun


couldn't have five thousand dollars correct didn't have any money right she was living on the street i don't know how much money she had didn't have a car i don't well let me just say on the car i


june date which is the date that he had given they credit it is a count of how we got it and it came in a fishing boat and when they got to watch the way those were the events they put down and again the fact that they were willing to let him go back to china to be removed


is why it's the government's evidence on this point relevant and in the petitioners not


client is so overwhelming if you would to go case by case by cases we have looked at in the records including the subscriptions for undercover


substances were always prescribed for pain in almost every instance the the patient came in and very often that your doctor finegold but but said that the first substances


open and then there's fertile ground to plow ok i got you know one of the instruction on itself may or may not be ok but even if it's ok you know opens the door to a very damaging argument by the prosecutor is wrong that's true although i


he walk off the base just simply walk off the base this is again pure speculation that african testified on page seventy four of the ministry of record that some parts of the base did not have security or a strong security how he went to school and open the


realize about that case before we get into the details of it were two separate kinds of error in that case one is the kind of instances we're talking about here where the prosecutor was making references to


cemetary and is found and the us north of the border near jack in the box post office he has to have walked across well you can see his footprints are not true true


the other evidence in the record we are in need but you're saying no we don't believe it does but


that's the case if we're not going to set up a circuit split but we're going to follow concepcion then at best language for the purpose of nine hundred fifty nine and means a violent act that was an intricate


so her present patient to the jury had raised this question but had not answered it so the question from the jury helps to demonstrate deficient performance as well as prejudiced it was clear to this lady jury that an expert was needed counsel


couple of hearts to that answer and one of them being that the prosecutor did not rest on his presentation from the first trial he went out pounded the pavement


trial that is they're not extrinsic to the trial they're part of the trial and they're part of the jury thought process are we allowed to delve into that well your honor we had opposed petitioners making this


and demonstrate probable cause if you want to restrain something all of which was done here and then prove it at trial which is yet to come so the development of the law over time certainly indicates congress


sightsee fifty three which is the statute we're talking about here now the defense's argument in this is well there's the supine conviction language in the statute says upon conviction the courts


one one calls which were admitted under an excited utterance one was there well i could be wrong but i am sure that both of those cases involved nine one one calls


though who says wait a minute that's the guy that drew and that's the guy that drove it from the hospital you need to stop him and in fact that's when the vehicle stopped and that individual is in fact identified they didn't want to stop the vehicle and


we don't have the robbers took the jewelry and and the jewel and the wholesale salesman the jewelry store never saw it and the salesman lost it to the robbers and never saw it again that's correct and the government never got


in which there was talking about how the police have been looking for him for several days and he said well the last time i saw the police was when they came up to my apartment and talked to me and asked me about those only if i knew anything about those old ladies deaths and i said


it ministre there's none of which had had any kind of a claim of corruption or illegal conduct leveled at them they were just doing their job trying to figure out if mr mcclellan should keep his job or not and what they were confronted with was a series of


problem with this case so you bought pop and an opportunity to respond you know i i would agree your honor that is definitely our position that even if you agree that at its inception the statement at least had some sort of suspicion backing it


september sixteen incident it seems to me to be uncontested and that's why i guess you don't need a whole lot of time on it this is an officer who's testifying falsely under oath repeatedly and in fact when he was asked about those doesn't it right so we don't that's


indicating that he understood that if he was dishonest in this particular interview that he would be terminated so in essence he was he was told you're in a in an interview it's important to be critical


terminated then how would we assess this issue of that infiltration it seems that it's not really related to that well i had that same question your honor as part of this case and the issue that came up with that is when you have an


yes on when the mental state is at issue which it is here state farm has the burden of showing there is this preconceived design to inflict injury and in this case frank's mental


frank knew the nature of his actions maybe he was so intoxicated that he was hallucinating or something and didn't even know the nature of his actions let me address that let's look at the evidence the judge didn't auto saw which included the


now that's something that the district court rejected in the summary judgment stage and is not before the court at this point so that rationale which is repeated in the answering bre of has already been denied and that's not up on appeal


not prefer the merits no your honor in fact we lodged our briefing that we would file in order to see to reinstatement and decision when we filed a motion intervene it does not address any of the merits issues and that's frankly because we don't even we can't see the


as i believe is recognized by san jose or others here that the parties part of the bargain was to seal this case this decision in addition to vacating it and so it was part of their bargain and they will this


why wouldn't that give an expert the opportunity to go through and determine whether or not there's a defect in the manufacturing process of sure the manufacturing process the way it was supposed to work the way it is listed in its internal


about how this evidence doesn't come from the specific aircraft that failed but again a reasonable juror could certainly infer that if the general particle separator doesn't meet the standard so too will every other particle separator


intimidated at the st one or something and then they tried it again so i mean that pretty much you know how would how would that change i mean if that's what this cooperation


just justice system here on ars is to rehabilitate and train minors such as mr vargas clearly a policy that precludes unlawful contact and corporal punishment such as this is a benefit to minors like mr vargas and society as a whole and that


waived because life care had induced the plan which is against reliance by accepting these premiums that waive that defense same thing happened here mr meekin did apply after he had started working the board knew that all those facts were totally known to the board at the


and that the grievance process of the bureau of prisons was an adequate alternative remedy that's the holding of the court i think that applies here now the court in that case did not reach the issue that's posed here which is whether the


rewrite the plain language of this contract in other words essentially don't modify don't modify the contract so the argument was put forward to the court was don't modify it apply the language as written


in the agency should still have the opportunity to address that before promulgating the regulation i want to also point out that the supreme court in southern utah also differentiated will from shall and made clear that will is


we recognize that if we didn't adopt this air correction procedure the thing would be published today no your honor i don't think that's right just if i think it's right i'm going in the wrong direction i want you to correct give me some course correction


publication they could have just left subsection f out and just said this is purely a process for the acceptance of information on potential errors i see my time is


proposal but instead to compel the agency to take some action if you look at the plaintiff's complaint and their request for relief where they have not sought that release in this case and that's what's extraordinary about the remedy that they've sought here you


assume that kind of minor risk all the time but the question is whether or not it was unreasonable for the hearing officer to consider the lack of documentation as one of several factors but getting back to this question of the decision i think he made the


pay benefits and not give the agency a nd bite of that apple thank you i hope that answer i'm not sure but i just had a couple of very quick points st many of the arguments were not what the hearing examiner relied upon urged the court to look at the


your honor there is no special safe harbor for what can be broadly construed as private speech st of all it's not private speech so factually we are not in a situation of private


speech we're talking about public information in the state of california birth records being public in the information broadly apparent counseling or simply you're going and i understood your argument in the brief but the way i read their argument with respect


proof in terms of dangerousness or flight changes a risk that requires some notice of why they consider the person dangerous that's correct it's no higher than your duties can simply come to the hearing and say we believe you're right i missed their team member the bird may then be on the


logistics and about about the release being the remedy and the hearing how does the class look well the class as of now i think we only have about we've had about thirty four thirty five people identified as


dollars vessels with an average annual revenue about seven hundred dollars seven hundred thousand dollars which it thought was a fully rationalized fishery based on its economic analysis but then it said accumulation and it's higher than that allowing revenues of more than a one million dollars in


whether the control rules here are consistent magnussen act is another question of statutory interpretation and again the statute says two things it says that the service has to establish the maximum share the privilege holder is permitted to hold acquire or use and it authorizes the service to establish any


authorization to the service to establish any other limitations or measures necessary that's a classic delegation of authority to an agency that the court has to evaluate at chevron step two and the service here reasonably interpreted that phrase to prevent agencies


you know i think we've heard of before if they're in that if they're on their way or they're in the parking lot but there's no allegation that that's going on here this is clearly it seems to me an employer who is trying to give flexibility to the employees to give them


i wanted to address a couple of other points that were made earlier and lesser others have questions you know there's the mcgill rule has absolutely no preference as to whether any of these claims or any claims at all get


insurance benefits in those three pages that we have but that really doesn't help us to understand what greater bay was intending and greater bay wrote down in the plan summary and in other documents that this death benefit was intended


doing anything then we're going to dismiss the petition the mistake that the district court made here was paste doesn't have anything to do with it because there was no petition there was no state petition filed


getting to the court's point that's the nd point you're about to get to yeah he he he could he could have done this well st of all as we say in our pleadings it's not what he could have done it's whether what he did do was reasonable but but at that


allowed to vary the the requirements of the a v r rules and in this case we were going to prepare our file that brief as close to the mediation as possible to hopefully not add their i mean


an explanation in the broader context and it may be here that the district court adequately explained overall why he thought a reduction was a program so that's all that needs to be said thank your


since discovery was propounded in december th teen there were no responses until march of two thousand and seventeen and only after intervention by the magistrate judge during that time there were also no documents produced by those parties or by those responsible for those


what do you think should happen with irreparable harm and whether we need to look at the other factors in the in the absence of an agreement you're compelling a party to subject itself to the regulatory jurisdiction that


following the meeting there was an exchange of letters that referred back to the informal opinion given orally at the meeting and that was sufficient to constitute a final agency action challenge and challengeable under the a p a now we have got


instance but you do have to have direct and specific involvement in the facility itself well wanted how can it be more direct and specific and quit mining and quit


whether mining equipment was was moved elsewhere or personnel moved elsewhere we do not know but isn't the fact even finding the government to be an operator does not give the government a liability


administrator here have access to all of the prior medical records of this district because it appears rather well documented that over the previous


time to time in a process prosecutor cases the so there's a matter of federal law did well it recognized immunities as a matter of federal law based on that


perform this new surgery the medicare reimbursements are terrible i'm out of this money i want to collect this double damage because i should have been paid by the private insurer right that was the one decision medical providers can in fact intervene along for cases to recover the


anything more i'd like to address any questions that i can i understand your honour's reluctance to see the board's reasoning here i fight fully appreciate it i do think it makes sense and i'd like to address any questions


written on an invention and the facts here are that he created the prototypes and he went to a patent attorney and the pad attorney put together the pictures and the different things of the patent had described them wrote everything about a patent then that is


claimed is a secure space after you get to the end of all five steps of the infinite claims it instructs a person born of skill that's what's being created is a secure space in that sense of security so i think in substance


the house channel and as a result of that a person of ordinary ordinary skilly are would look and say ok within my technical grasp i can see that there's only these two places in there for under can't are it would be obvious what's the argument about where


various parts of a complex procedure all arrived the same place same time and it's done by it i mean it can be used on a computer as a program but it's


at the decision because he essentially dismissed the chapter seventy five action for the election reasons he didn't do an analysis specifically


terms in the act and are used out the act to refer to specific products coming from a specific country these are not company specific concepts under the act also the legislative history of the one thousand eight hundred and four dollars amendment shows


with the appeal is of not granting us the protection of rule fifty six when we viewed the evidence that is true however we disagree across the board with this fact finding i mean it's in our it's our statement of


done for the benefit of the owner of the website just as here alfonso's relevation relative matching server is all that is all put into effect and benefitted from by it so that is that was a mistake it made


no your honor he can go back to the board and it is worth pointing out that in this case because his discharge was upgraded he can actually go to the board and ask for potentially disability benefits so he he isn't totally left without any kind of remedy or recourse in this case the military has


damaged as a result of actual use of the mark by the the other party in fact in this case corporate now since at the starting point they had argued or pleaded rather facts about pork more that are untrue or cannot be proved and they've


word search the court's final opinion you will not find the word precious there is no finding of prejudice there's no prejudice tied to something material not being disclosed and i think that makes this case stand quite distinct from cases this court has heard on spoliation


harmed these clients can are to be brought just in a different vehicle all we're trying to do is to get better and the benefits that is there are the best effective date that they can get and depriving veterans of their benefits the exclusion here is wrong three times


web services interface something that was pretty novel and there are some difficulties that come with inventing this particular claim to imagine how do you respond to that other words you know if there was some technical ingenuity


and they're not interchangeable or the opening bias doesn't include any additional of structure you just have that you just have the clip adding a spring now adds a structure so you have you have much more


that are undisputed what's the unfair surprise the board just found your arguments insufficient and that you didn't meet your burden of proof to show that these were not obvious yes your honor and this is what you have the board to in


that was their argument that's the way they presented the evidence to the the the board and the they were experts cited several publications that recognize that look up tables are our


with the idea that said didn't necessarily means we're talking about the transaction amount i didn't see anything suspicious if it is that bad it was more about we don't want you to say data file which is prefer you to say data because that minds of better and more cleanly with a claim like


what is stated in the specification it comes to an spills over three is that in that process if anybody wanted to do back office conversion they took the checks into the back office and they're in the back office went through the steps that the


so there's at least a material issue of fact right there even if the hypothetical design is correct which we don't think that it is so the court erred by taking that away the jury and even if you got to the give you have a


whether the bergdahl reference was commercialized that became the whole linchpin for this commercial viability commercial success commercial zation types of arguments that the patent owner has not been making but the board exam and


the scoreline is always down so you run the four results face up face down parallel park and tickler which always scored the bottom of the board with the load coming on the test tells us to run four methods the four hundred and seventy three


website activities whether in what activities where i'm sorry what activities were happening the website itself continued to exist in my client also had there was an interactive by


disregarded it and each turn because of what it understood or should say misunderstood to be saying in the petition less or any other questions or is


then at the bottom of thirty six


because if that's knowingly that standard is knowingly there has to be something more when you're talking about willfully and even if you find that it was willful i think that the kind of


difference is that u t contracted with genset ics and under and by contract required genset ics to sue infringers within a given amount of time on pain of breach of contract and losing


ambiguity in what then would be the browser that salt in the preamble which also referenced includes a reference to the browser or description of the browser and it's in that section that


unless you on us have any further questions on the claim construction i was going to move to the nd error with regard to browser identity the nd error that the court committed with regard to the browser identity limitation is


can put anything into the client device is the operating system part of the client device yeah but so is everything else in runners so we didn't know and of course we didn't expect that they would have something to identify because it doesn't


i'll sit down it's a somewhat unorthodox inherits a case for seniors can be raised because they're trying to prove this very particular numerical property of prior art based on embodiments that don't come from the private yes they're trying trying to prove


found that for ducks meditating in view of all the data at different concentrations concentration did not make a difference to stability and that was supported by expert testimony that further added there's no reason to think that concentration would change for this particular drug given its properties


model is made of a transparent material in the supporting spacers in the circular wall of are of different colors the overall appearance is refreshing and it is believed zimmer's desire to purchase can be aroused by the structural stability and


mediation is an important that we know when the mediation was believed to be ended by the parties that is a very good question that i do not believe that the record answers me


still a case to be discussed again and they had to get all questions how do we know that they considered to be an open issue i think you're a lawyer on this table of the peers at three all not where help us


what is going to be optimal for a particular purpose and again thirty thousand five hundred are numbers that you not result from going to ingenuity they result from the commercial ladders that they chose commercially available in order to


opening brief the a nova device is designed for the purpose of allowing that natural sound into and past the device and mixed with the sound coming from the receiver so that makes it clear that this is what the open passageway is designed


closed and sealed design choice often the zation is not doing the opposite thing with your design choice and so i think that argument falls flat secondly with respect to this ng because of those differences you can't say optimization


device when it's actually put in the ear that's called the open area so the open passageway is focused on the case area and the open area is focused on the area


counterfeit and at that time you all said yes it is and our authorization is not retroactive then and once again in this litigation we actually ask the trial court for more time in answering i c c


as you can see we make the point that samsung is arguing that and this is a quote any d l l where there are two clocks having the same frequency and therefore the same period must necessarily be within one


expert has testimony that surfactant would have been expected to interfere with the native formation of the hex mers that are vital to our genes mechanism of action once it's injected to form precipitates necessary to give it its long acting effect


great distinction that says only when you're in the region where you restrict plan there's nothing there that says i do that and we could go to the prior art which is what marker seems to need to do to find that


based on his experience in the field when he sees that something says no dilutes that it's effectively one hundred percent active dr lam i believe similarly


competition by keeping somebody out of a big field where here that's not the case rody is hotly contesting infringement and we believe they are


and i came on to take pictures of the hallway and the doorway and see if your plumbing was working what if i came in to see if kirk was ok or if your ceiling fans were working this day i mean that because i'm present in the premises you tended to be the perp


information there or being able to absorb the manner of the character of the witnesses in this case and then the other thing is you know mark fuhrman was the one that wrote these letters and he didn't testify plaited going to be easily had mr director show up to testify on their behalf in regards to the


opportunity to examine the property and issue and to propose a and kind distribution as long as she is given an opportunity and exercises


purpose of the painter report we have to make sure and this court has to make sure that that counsel waiver is good so that we can prevent the these kinds of appeals from occurring in the first place that's what the rule


out with a monthly one thousand some benefit and that continue and did not terminate until upon the death of either participant mr fitzgerald or the


to you that there's no authority for that in your side you don't want cases and i don't believe that there is anything out there that says that this is intended to force


the lack of any evidence to the contrary for the jury conclude it's not proven likely to occur these instructions would have assisted them in determining the proper amount


police he took the statement testified denied assaulting ok i know there's nothing in particular the status pointed to about his testimony that is particularly unbelievable it's


toxic materials the fee asked for from individuals and non profits is less than the amount which must ultimately pay to these and recite it also charges no fees to the library schools


environmentally hazardous they simply failed produce enough evidence in the three angels case and it's generally held that to show charitable operation you have to show your line item detail


this is a case where i think we should be looking out for the best interests of the children and i think the trial judge to that this is not a case where you get a reward for being a nice person or a bad per punish for being a bad person it's over what's best


been there the just of an arguable claim for post conviction relief and the court should have allowed it to go past the first stage the


property they were receiving through the transfer of the deed in fact an even stronger language on the burnet court said a deed will not be declared void for uncertainty if it is possible by any reasonable means of construction to ascertain from


was previously prosecuted for this and to not raise the issue in our own property i think it's prosecuting attorney in this case i have an obligation to try to prosecute i please my property and not take his word and


permit it allows competing facilities like the plaintiffs here or other adversely affected parties to to seek a more detailed decision from the board that was an administrative avenue that was available to them that they didn't pursue


fatherly duties as far as nurturing these children but frankly i have confessed to the panel that if the court if the panel finds that it was proper to


well you know i don't either i think that the the wording of the order opens up at least more than one interpretation and i believe that under some of the


public would be exposed to this risk let's say you go to sam's club and you maybe buy a hamburger or something you want to sit down and eat it you know that's going to be something that's going to europe where he sit down at this at a table


oh i believe it would protect the sharbat globally and that would be a fair reading of the statute with all due respect in fact the iowa supreme court addressed that very issue in case we cited our brief regarding the university of iowa and the court stated there isn't


that the university has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that's not changing bob that's not rethinking something that's just simply not explained in the order of the


yes the board was created initially and it's how creative you can certainly convene meetings you can certainly have the owners of the box in which subdivision come


first so long as either one of them owns the adjacent property that was otherwise strive to be to me that certainly show that


but even the plaintiffs wanted to do that plaintiffs wanted to have the general instruction given and then they wanted to have a limiting instruction given that would qualify the general instruction to take out traveling under the ordinary coming in going rule and to


recall the dog of chip wood son who was visiting for holiday party actually the son and the dog were permanent residence at that time so it was a permanent resident mr shit was how


over the place about whether there was control as defined by the animal control these issues ought to be decided by a jury you are as you have you know the questions that really concludes my presentation and i think ok you have an opportunity to


pet him so i'm not sure if i understand you refer to it as a hearsay statement so my question is is it something which isn't titled to very little value in this context of where the summary judgment should have been granted


important this grows no doubt when maybe there was some degree of unseemly behavior i guess because she was out with a girlfriend and over him by that that had greater


work is not to have the proceeds disproportionately eaten by bank fees but rather to allocate funds for the benefit of the beneficiaries given the set morris intent of the stablish enough threshold level to cause the


reformation cases the course put in the position of the settle and yes you look at the language of the trust but you also have to make just a reasonable it's just a response a question like does this make sense based on all the evidence i have do i think the set or would want this


this and his language was very clear the court has always been suspect of pension valuations because of the unpredictability of life expectancies involved then he went ahead to say the pensions can be divided by qualified orders which is really not


it's i think when we were going front of the trial court on the argument was sort of interesting and maybe a little appealing in the sense that the argument was i am the supporter supplier and


provided for there are some children who have very little who are residing with their parents or other caretakers this child was not well provided for but he but he did have he did have a significant amount of souter and he


they were circumstantial and there was the amount of the checks with the amount of the amount that may have been taken by deception does that need some statutory


preservation of private business record tax that those statutes govern financial institutions and making banking practices for are the business records exception to


contents to four point two four it raises three salient points it first although there are several criminal statutes in illinois that refer to the concept of proximate cause at least


you wouldn't be making this are you i would probably still be making right i think i think but i believe that the fact that the jury returned acquittals on actually the


then they can't recover anything in his logic is that if it's if it's exclusive if it's the sole reason how how can you have that


assistance maybe the defense attorney was ineffective in bringing it up on redirect where you know redirect had even been engaged in neither the conviction nor of the


earlier asked was hard about the question from the jury and the response speculating that from the point of view of the prince attorney a question from the jury indicate that someone


for all criminal cases instead it's only point when perhaps the parents are not there so the role of the parent and the guardian ad litem are somewhat symbiotic they say they have the same potential conflict here counsel represented both the parents and


legal principle saves the invalid portion of the it's not an essential part of the deal it does not void the entire deal and i think in this particular case the hundred eighty days was simply


it appears that the crux of the disagreement between the defense and state has this question of whether the traffic court order for hybrid representation was directed at a particular person and if it was


not what these transcripts these interview notes show that they were actually relying on the inference of conscious consciousness of guilt for example that the factor of decision analysis made might mean something different we don't really know


says what it says and that's what we're in the very i think the justice the next said where does it say that you pay everything at the end it doesn't is that the difference between this and the seeming


cases in a case that this court has told the trial court will be in court that we need to do all of our discovery for that case in arbitration and that's not the way it works we did


if you're driving down the road and you run into somebody and the asphalt sprays on somebody it's not caused by operation of the equipment it's caused by operation of the vehicle and you have coverage so ok


thing that clark had been ten ability or permission to operate the fort tanker for any maintenance really purposes so it doesn't really help to go back to the policy language in a way because the understood the policy language but she found that


congress in three different ways indicated that it wanted that definition to be very broad it started with including but not limited to it said any deeds and then any other instrument transferring title possession


if sold directly by me sells for essential in nothing because of the contamination of the necessity of the land owner who purchases from me to clean it on the other hand if the purchaser can take korean clear of the


employee out into customers homes unless it saw what the answer was to question ten of the b s sayas form and you can see the b s i as form an excerpt of record thirty five or an excerpt of record


sadowsky give us the ryan stay it took an additional i counted about twenty five additional pleadings so one of the purposes of rinds you know we


yes and so that's less than the wage that's been bargained for and of the c b s correct correct now with regard to the overtime the second question is what rate well that rate would be you look at the paycheck stub what read are they getting paid per hour


after your regularly scheduled time what is a call out mean to call i mean you get paid for the time that you're under the employer's control and that you're not under the employer's control when you're not called out these are provisions that need to be


time i just want to address the purpose of the of the prevailing wage law which i think council has misstated it's not to benefit only construction workers if you look at the labor code itself it prevailing wages


and a separate nonpublic school so the nonpublic school is the educational placement the residence is the mental health placement and what they're trying to do is they're saying they agree that student was in the nonpublic school and that would be


and that makes sense even


request for the county and that that was not present but i think if you again if you look at the burton opinion take a look at that all they say is well you knew you were signing a settlement agreement that put you on notice that your


light nor is it a case where the material duties of her occupation were disputed rather the issue in this case is whether the district court erred in holding that the only differences between a light occupation and a


that explaining to brown to how people use power drills she was offered the opportunity to say isn't that a threatening act and she said no i would not characterize that as a threatening act that is a direct that directly undermines the idea that brown took every opportunity in this absence


a deliberation and whether the jury found deliberation they could have convicted him under felony murder which didn't even require deliberation but this court said no even though they could have done that this is not


jury was affected by this error and convicted or at least some must have relied on that theory if you want to say i do want to save some time here


i think in this specific type of instructional air context where there is valid and invalid theories the courts the supreme court and this court have dealt with that by satisfying constitutional error and proceeding to a prejudice analysis under


we give a notice an opportunity care which we give them three notices opportunities to cure we are very patient with them but i do want to say that the injunction could be affirmed even without the terminations and that's because judge selma specifically found that the actual products at issue here


of projected quota if you look at that document you'll see that the document shows what the sales goals from were for everyone who is listed on that document you will see in the long beach


without any corroborating evidence about what his expectation was i think our position is not based on that your honor i think worse but i mean in the end the jury


took your colleague but i think we had we now a full grasp of both sides arguments i want to thank both sides for the excellent briefing in this case and the excellent arguments in this case isn't it thank you very much


event and it wouldn't been futile because if you look at their under under graham case which is a california supreme court case you're supposed to be precise in specific and what you say you want you can go back and look at the records they don't even


after are registered in i think class thirty four which has to do with tobacco products so that raises yet another statutory interpretation as to whether the way you interpret this is is really the same class of


school dot com which was under the much harder exceptional case standard pre occupied fitness and pre son or from this circuit that case held where you had no damages just a liability finding and an injunction and willfulness


marcieu establishes that a decision to intentionally divert promotional dollars towards a media company's own properties raises a fact issue on the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and here there's evidence that in connection with negotiations on the co financed


issue that defeats summary judgment that viacom had any other buyers for any additional portion beyond this three hundred eighty thousand dollars that they were able to resell no evidence as to what a hypothetical


you're looking at it because they didn't even address the issue that that first prong shredded never they never went anywhere they didn't even they didn't resign the fright facts so they never got there and so


correct rather than even so on name and she would have been she would have had the benefit of the information that would have been gathered she's not here that's what i'm saying that's correct is not the problem with that aspect of your of your argument well no that's part


mean and no no no either one we actually if you use the mean the average and i'm sorry i mean to cut your let me go ahead please explain because i couldn't i don't think you're mean gets you there it does you use the whole life but the whole life doesn't like i don't know how you justify the whole


product but it also may not that's why people talk about i overpaid for that product that's what people say on the other hand i got a great deal for that product so how do you think we should figure out the value here well what what the plaintiffs


is that by the placement and the characterization of this biohazardous waste fee on the invoice in the manner in which the discussions went back and forth with the clerk and the pamphlet and all of the circumstances here it was clear


extending the act of state doctrine now one of the things plaintiff argued was the international association of machinists the court was dealing only with price fixing but that consisted only of production limits so he said that doesn't


something that we pressed in our summary judgment papers that it was that they were not meeting their burden because that's essentially what they did they took every single piece of information that was conveyed in the white paper and in some e mail


want to set aside our order because of a lack of jurisdiction so you're saying that because it's a jurisdictional issue they didn't have to do anything that's exactly right and so makes sense with the day have to file a notice of appeal well yes absolute why if they didn't have to do anything why didn't have to do that


client as the chapter eleven trustee who subsequently asked for the conversion of the case a chapter seven but mr harkey when he was in control of the debtor lied under oath several times and one of the times that he lied under oath was at the meeting of creditors


that's the problem here what you are they're making too much of the distinction between article commune and article one in this particular case what the aggrieved party deals with is when general motors files bankruptcy and has a million shareholders


a distinction between telemarketing and the collection calls and of course the collection collection calls contesting standing so i think we still contesting sense and that's a judge the team is asking yes yes we are still at this time contesting standing