and that would be a question as to whether the district court had abused its discretion of a standard school district argument is that the gist court believed that it did not have the authority to take into account the degree of success


appropriate a link reading a receipt insurance policies and especially a program one of the supreme court's decision in the universe has worked that reasonable reading of the policy that allows student panicky to take advantage of


has dragged on for years mcfarren buck was involved long before two years before the complaint was ever three years before the complaint was ever filed he's a want who who got off the list and seen courts to block this money before it could


the power to give away her power to ask


record broken out over notes and that a scale is a scale we would then figure out how much mcdonald's meat from the use we would try to prove willful infringement in order to enhance the damages we would do so with reference to his conflicting stories as to how the


factory view the the earlier findings isn't isn't that what with the reversed yes and you're saying that even the earlier findings are sufficient to justify a judgment for the trustee


array has taken control of the issue there are quite frankly cases all over the law and the court once again able to write an opinion and making any determination at once by flipping a coin


that one group of lawyers worked out a global settlement for two separate claimants i never seen that in my life and i've handled many many many multiple claims situations


like help out a friend or something and effect you know custody in the way that the friend wanted it that be a different situation where an officer would know if there is evidence of that would that go outside of qualified immunity


visitation on mutually agreed upon terms there convenient for each other in the event that they are unable to do so the following shall schedule will apply mother shall have quote unquote custody of matthew for purposes


party interfering with with as a relationship or contractual relationship with two other that you do if i were and i always by analogy if i were retained as a manager to run the day


trayvon appears in fifteen to twenty percent of the movie he's got ten speaking lines at best he's a chessman we learn nothing about his family background his interest is his love his likes at that to trust man in the


this your you will now have the right to have your claim heard there is no such similar language giving dillard's even deadlines there is one statement and


information on which they rely again according to the cory declaration itself they are very clear about this the information they derive in order to establish their allegations of fraud is almost entirely public and that the information that's not


wording of two california supreme court decisions


juror was concerned about having to go beyond five days not being permitted because of the concern about her employer i bring those up not because i'm kept getting this from marconi but they illustrate all the facts in which


she hadn't yet completed her degrees but she herself should have had training that exposure to this kind of material can be harmful to children even at her state of education there is a school psychologist who was fully licensed employed by the school district


decision and he was terminated because they put him on disability and then he refused to go on long term disability they terminated him because of his disability at the time they terminated him they didn't know about his qualifications that there were any accuracies


confines of what should or shouldn't be deemed reasonable a month or two yes but justices for someone who's down and laboring down in the trenches this is payroll protection most good working people in this country


working you're not to sleep because actually i don't think that has anything to do with this because i look at the definition of this disability it says nothing about whether you're getting paid or not it simply says whether you or your prevented from doing all the material is substantial loser your occupation we got the guys boss


the musicians the writers of the musical composition everybody who appears in a movie would have to consent to exploitation of that movie or to a phone clip from now you know they'd say you'd have to look at


clearly and it has its behavior with notification when all of the record shows that he said i'm going to concentrate on these other parts of the case well it shows that the attorney


us and the government wants to deport i simply that's not only that the government does take the position still generally that they are free to deport while


independent decisions along the way what was the error i mean if the jury heard the case and to say that adverse to you i mean what what's the legal or the error is that we should have had the right to first of all have the canine issue


fifty five percent is profound difference and ninety five percent is beyond a reasonable doubt and how can that support the inference that there's a ninety five percent chance that the person did well


past occurrences by a preponderance of evidence and then the judge tells me i can infer from that alone that he did commit the crime that he's now accused of i don't see the ambiguity actually


this shirt pocket doesn't get the say that but if you don't do it the way he prescribed do it then you've exhausted all your of the eligible remedies i don't think you have to use the one that we give you i just don't see where that with


cases by saying that they were addressing the facial claim were saying that there were exclusively facial claims that these were all per se facial claims every substantial advancement case had to be a person


was we're not going to retain that right to oldham and we decide who meets our eligibility criteria we're going to give that right to the united states government we're going to give that right to the secretary of the interior


a tribal member he's now the chairman of the band but this letter was written to him in his personal capacity indicated earlier talking about causation but i have no idea where you're going so what i'm trying to establish is the sequence of events that had happened and which will


never actually given to her even though in some of those early reports it was well when you come back from the delivery of the child then we can work to help you closer what do you know the various things that are set why why is that not enough to go to the jury


because the timing of it as i said was dictated by the end date of her well that's what you say correct and that's that's what is uncontroverted well now it is a country road and the finding


motion our position was that those two shipments were not the subject in this case we had received in this will disclose or is that nothing about those shipments the complaint said nothing about those shipments so our initial position at the time of the first motion in august of two


here she had ruled on it here but but continental is arguing that it's part of the motion and you're saying in your reply brief that for the purposes of this motion we agree that the original warsaw applies


when you get to the arbitration clause itself it begins with a dispute resolution because it's labeled it begins and all caps and again repeat stuff this is a this means that you will resolve disputes through arbitration not through trials or


somebody's quote hitting the door real hard and it flying open close quote that's lines twenty three twenty four yeah nobody said he had is it on the door door described quote i'm going to get that you're on your described very quote very have you so heavy that i've


waste the time arguing about the jury's resolution of conflicting testimony when you can use a lot of words committed what they're saying is irrevocably for ever when the money has to be there it's going to be there even if i think this is going to be the


and communications is in the marketplace selling christian music records and that might be the only thing that the person i was thinking think i don't want any part of that when they're really the referral is talking about my client he sells


is the evidence could support the view that he asked for money on the representation that he was going to use it for business purposes and then he didn't and a jury could reasonably find that isn't that right i think with


on an f b i agent who says by the way here's nine more contracts there's nine more contracts and in the contracts themselves are the loans which is still a contract where the base is the nub of this entire case and so by putting on these nine contracts


jury was able to conclude that he had intent at the time he was making the false representations and just to go back to the documents which the court talked about if we look at the weaver case which is per curiam by this court it


attribute any foreclosure to the c p o agreements for the years two thousand and eight through two thousand and eleven so that that that data the argument about that has no applicability to two thousand and eight through two thousand and eleven and whether there was an adequate


not that surprising that the court became confused because it was an argument yes for the so reply we asked for the opportunity for a surrebuttal expert report and the expert report did address these


understood to think that it had been given a stipulation by the parties that was going to control this summary judgment litigation and that the court was going to hold you to it and we wanted to be held to it we were supposed to prevail that's a couple


objection when i complained objecting to the ex parte car asexually ex parte but the contact with the juror out of the presence of the parties what we do object to your and where the court erred was taking it to the next step because then the


little out of line and so contrary to the conduct of the inquiry really the court sort of cut off any discussions about the basis for council not being prepared i think the core disagreement we have with the government is whether or


student can qualify in some circumstances where here for example it's a trade school and there is some evidence that the plaintiff you know had previously been engaged


highest court says that if if you argue if you make a claim the tax is either exempt by statute is inapplicable by statute or is unconstitutional that that claim belongs in the law


then ruling concurrently in that case if this court has no further questions we would submit based on a recent ask the court to dismiss the appeal thank you


me mr i saw that you did not request time to argue but in fact since mr


to litigation about it because it wasn't just a technical violation there's a fake trust in a fraud going on here i believe that those cases brought in the trust name fraudulent lee as well as demands for


party that decision is binding absent a showing of bad faith or fraud or the failure to exercise on his judgment and that was cited by


the question is can one read what they said as to love boat vs fact when they said the visit was a list risky business than


would be produced who would produce what would be produced it was agreed to by the parties when we got over there there was a lot of delay that's what the court found the the information was


but the question for me is the ultimately what do we look at to decide this your theory on your theory makes sense to me and in the sense of that you could be convicted of assault in the assaulting a correctional officer and then still have an eight the moment claim


which certain defendants were removed from the case i think the hearing officer in the superintendent were named and they were dismissed early on there were some very very limited disclosures but but before twenty four


in the case of killing you go to the murder statute yet life in the case of killing it doesn't say in the case of a killing or if it's a conspiracy if the object of the


has his fifth amendment right because he's awaiting sentencing and to he may be losing the benefit the bargain but he at that point he had the government have reduced the charge to a second degree murder so who is no longer in contrast to mr


them but that's a lot of thought to respect your honor that's a lot of speculation of what the record if your position was that the judge misspoke and that or the deliberately misspoke why isn't your remedy is your remedy


and the parties don't have a fallback in the agreement but interestingly the sappy tens arbitration is continued in front of the triple and the arbitrator has given wells fargo the opportunity to argue that it can't be there for


that they just made the direct connection to the subsequent rules that that is a direct reference to including the provision in the aaa rules that purse cripes


this plaintiff was not acting on her own behalf it was not about her own job grievance it was about something that was happening in a very unusual situation the employer actually was also the employer of the police this was a strange long tough task universe


is the essence of the problem under this you know as you know there's no obligation to present exculpatory material to the grand you know but under under monye under no pew where or what the prosecutor knows this information which actually contradicts that person's


with ever hard or relied on other persons about a conversation with ever hard in coming to this conclusion i think the other evidence the other kinds of evidence that would have been helpful and that would support the determination would have been for


never been in regular education because he was a regular education student from first screen through ninth grade receiving regular grades without any kind of specialized services it was not until ninth grade that he began to exhibit


want then i want to reconsider whether i defend myself i need your help on that judge i mean he doesn't say that i don't think he says that every knows word that involves reverse he is complaining over and over again about


wanted to cite these cases today i have we have we have a twenty eight day practice to do that and we review those matters appeared for your argument but go ahead let me let you see there was some disagreement in the briefing about the way


ignorance so they've developed this are created the structure pursuant to which they they cannot know about any obligation but that of course you have a compliance for of course but that assumes that there was a medicare beneficiary in the first place who got a conditional


and money laundering well it seems to me that that's it there's there are conditions that can be fashioned around that concern about protecting the public you have at home you have been home confinement he lives at home you have him there with no access to internet you


testimony directly contradicted an affidavit submitted in opposition to summary judgment the second was an error and in determining the plaintiff didn't plead to claim for hostile work environment which is very clearly delineated within the complaint the third was shifting the burden


than a porch because it's the nature of the use in my mind that really distinguishes the driveway and the porch the porch is much more connected with the intimate activities inside the household which is


if someone signs a yes with her value received i promise to pay which makes it a negotiable promissory note as far as though it doesn't say to the order of oh don't don't don't don't bring this into another body of law it's just a piece of paper that


to draft an agreement which he did using korean forms you're saying there's there is available extrinsic evidence that shows for resco was forbearing because they wanted this kind of language because they


recognized that under of under circumstances there can be these pleadings made upon information and belief there's been required to be factual support for that information and belief so that it's not simply speculative and


precisely the case that that the argument the burlington northern standard that my brother counsel here has argued should be the standard for thirty one fifty one q is not the appropriate standard and what is the


yes your honor if you look at they don't even have to say that right all they have to do is say that well jack or would have to be the clearly established rule right so so for purposes of so the our first amendment claim is based on two types


my understanding is that if discovery would be allowed to proceed is that further facts would be introduced in the record that would in light in the circumstances which prompted the auditor person to contact the plaintiff such as it was may have been


circuit which is you look to the status of the claimant as of the petition date do you have a forcible right to equity do you hold a security and we don't have that here


that the country in question would not hear the evidence the party seeking disclosure to be prevails on that element in the absence of proof the foreign court wouldn't hear it but let me approach this


if there is no restriction on us using the materials that would be fine you would be a happy camper yes and since he didn't appeal he would be an unhappy non appellants ok so now let's get to the french


that may be true that may be true but would you agree with me that there is a way to read it's not crystal clear that that means that it's a purely hypothetical some person might be needed as he's referred to a corpse


goddess to make an imprudent election about what kind of pension to apply for whether to put in the retirement papers but i'm having trouble understanding how


the definition of class one notes in this is not disputed is and we can find a particular page reference but class one notes are defined as the class one a notes and the class one m notes together


wanted to point out quickly that even if that disqualification issue with heard there has been nothing stated in support of a conflict of interest well a martin was a former client you know high at a current


case law this court should expand illinois law in the manner plaintiff requests before we begin i think it's helpful to provide some context to what's actually at issue here by plaintiff's own admission she does not bring a failure to one claim or a strict liability claim against the


then what is given to them and in this case the learned intermediary dr tilton could only work with the information that our c e o had just given him and moving slighted by the way our c e o supervise he did not actually


because it's not a document we know that it's should have been a document but it's not so taking judicial notice of something that is supposed to be on the face of something means that


again here the trial court judge judge we knew was the wrong standards in both of these instances she imposed a heightened pleading standard for her allegations in the complaint and that was not required for any of the


exists in the last five years she's mean you're not disputing are you the trial court's findings that essentially mark was able to pay personal expenses bills household was able to use the trust for whatever purposes he desired with


trust that is being discussed in section nine section five uses the term desirable and best interest action that you use the terms discretion best interest comfort


that from my experience all of just being in these facilities all the time which a lot that i learn all the time ok if so you're saying that diagnosis is to creating a care plan yes and so who would have done that that would have been the


position because of the timing of the bankruptcy and the timing of the service bankruptcy law set under five hundred and forty one dollars fifty five cents what it says is the what becomes the asset of the trustee is at the time of the


about the age of the husband health issues aren't those legitimate considerations i would say your honor that those are considerations i would not say that those are exceptional circumstances there is no


you sympathize with the fact that technology is challenging for certain people by made the comment that it was available all of the time that these proceedings were going


typically when you have a plan developments in your shrinking the size of a lot you're shrinking the size of a lot in order to do what create the opportunity for more units more density than his other wife or wife here we only have less a lot


of years of case law and precedence and column law on national humiliation it's not meant to allow a living against to circumvent years of common law to pursue a private actions


and in defense brief they talk about the rd stage hearing being where counsel would testify i find it hard to imagine the council will say anything other than what council said at the crankily hearing which is


i guess i would differ as to i guess i would differ as to the meaning of the issue raised in the post conviction petition in the


two dates they didn't do anything about that either and the issue was raised that we only want to judgment on that last order and the reason we only want to judgment on that last order was because i couldn't find out how much the benefit was i had to


this just another point this is an underground system with involving a small and when there are widespread system failures in water around water's getting into this system that shouldn't be happening in the


and if it's the basis for the conviction how is it not the conviction was brought about by the actions or the story or the confession made by you or your client


suggested that there was a surplus was a surplus ever saw so so how how many days afterwards did the motion to reopen the case after the judge


asked this question for a purpose i know this isn't a car search them if that's the case in we consider what a panic plea of courts including the our supreme court has said about


the trial court's decision does make reference to six or seven specific instances now although it doesn't repassed all of the evidence it hurts the thing about what stepmother said thing in its decision the court did find that every


she announced it that there were issues with evidence some issues with the evidence on the case right right however some issues she said newly discovered the only thing that was newly discovered was these statements


discussing factor what would have been factored number seven of the street factors believing the decision rested on the evaluation of everything that had gone on believing that it was that the trial was a


the atoms were on the scene that should've stopped well that was inaccurate it actually added to the totality of circumstances and in this strange case the court went a step further


and she was happy with the hospital is that correct that is one of the reasons that factually she did deliver two babies there prior if you were to read her affidavit she


has sufficient financial resources to sustain her for decades to come in in a can trial case the court out found that it was an abuse of discretion not to terminate maintenance but


we're going to do is we're going to start calling judges as witnesses to testify as to whether or not they would have accepted the plea i don't know how that's established unless there's evidence on the record to rebut what i think is a fair


date which was the st court date that the defendant appeared on and at that time we indicated that we hadn't


admonish by the court or by the state in open court that these were mandatory consecutive sentencing their correct i believe to trot you mean prior to the guilty plea or to the to me prior to


to look to the overall award of that because in the underlying brief that roberts had presented to this court and heis one he had raised the issue that there was no evidentiary basis in the trial


for his ruling and and said that although he did state i quote although your honour's could have been more specific and quote in your dream and i'm sorry and i swan in your instructions of hungry man he then


few cocktails a dinner and then when they got back to the room they polished off what appears to be by the by the story of a bottle of tequila and and a chunk of a bottle of whiskey


on heroin they claim they had a hot dog with poppy seed bun but you're not going to prohibit someone from eating hot dogs if you're after drinking awful lot of mouthwash too


less with respect to lifestyle all of the evidence presented we can eric it was not quantified as a result of the lifestyle not have been quantified not been provided without competent


line item show every expense withdrawal that ms coats made from the account that have debit card transactions for every place that she used the money at because as she presented this was an account that she could


court thanks both counsel for your arguments today for to particularly for participating remotely this is obviously new for our court the court will take the case under advisement and a written decision will be issued in due course thank you so


with the land does the presumption in favor of taxation


greater credibility because they really only have credibility for some short term money guy croes simply cannot be used to predict think twenty years future the


income for the st four years then stepped it down to twenty one forty four percent after the st four years specifically an acknowledgement of the fact that that cable arena miller the opportunity to complete her


and still need twenty one forty four percent of gross income for maintenance the fact that she chose not to work is on her and she's going to have to suffer the consequences of that in the long run but as of two thousand and thirteen the fact that she hadn't worked


circumstances and retirement simply in and of itself does not mean a change in circumstances that affects the ability to pay and we maintain


did show was a mirror image i know it didn't but let's assume it is your position that there still was not a marital waiver because that wasn't specifically addressed putting aside the law the


entitled to be a range and entitled to look at what defenses he might have after that arraignment in this case defendant was advised of all of the charges the same day they were brought he received


opened up by offering interest to argue that there was never a hearing i'm interested in this crazy you know the the argument came on from suzanne's counsel seeking maybe twenty nine percent interest to judge her argument i went back and


interests mandatory or expression or the judge called it reasonable that doesn't take away from the fact that she was awarded discretionary interest so again just to move into that the judge said very clearly on page twelve of the


determined that they but basically she took the position that you know he could he would benefit by pushing himself a little work and then and


i haven't been able to address the preemption argument of can i have a second on that are actually briefly do that i would and i want to point out judge because this case was filed was was handed down just a few weeks ago and your honor was on the


rock ten that these were not comments made by the decision maker in that case dealt with whether a supervisor who had a racial animus but was not involved in decision making process those comments could be attributed to it is


something with that fate and as far as the reservation system council went outside the record which is fine saying that it's a better service it doesn't work it's there was no there was not one it's not on the record i don't know how far i can go with this but there was not


congress knows how to do that whether the f c c did or not or the statute does i can only i don't think any of that really matters a whole lot and basin sissoko up also sort of framed this this morning as a question of whether they knowingly you know this is


metaphysical doubt that doesn't counter everything else that happened here that the professor schweikert in some way try to assist mr thompson getting into the program and writing letters or something


because you haven't been you have a plane who's accusing a professor of rice discrimination a professor who went out of her way to help are and did you and you have the professor coming


he said she specifically he requested that additional investigation be conducted regarding teresa because of her suspicious behavior he specifically noted that she was he thought her behavior was suspicious knowing more than she should have known directing them where to look he thought that was suspicious and that's exactly why they


i would have would have liked to done met more investigation as to why she ran why is that crippling using that word the why is the report crippling souther report it's this it's this phrase it's the two


you could still be right about the judgment approach but that doesn't tell you the answer to what to do when you review this conviction and you address an argument that could have raised been raised before but was not wise and why isn't it within the


the way the complaint was drafted all the way through mr tertius argument today it's it's it's a breach of contract maybe it's expressed but we can't really point to a writing in the complaint there's also mention of an implied contract maybe maybe there was some implicit


denied what mr sires was saying what was what was the agreement between the parties i want you to assume that mr brennan never denied it in orally or in writing what were the terms of the contract even assuming everything was decisive there's no essential


work that was done by way of investigation the records also indicated during that time period now why clients will concede the smith there is also the case and the any and all other matters that would say that the year


not to write the article if mr shand ago was one of the ultimate decision makers had any discriminatory animists that's not an act that makes any sense now i want to go back to the cat's paw theory though on the factual part of it as opposed to the legal


burden of attorney fees and that's and so what happened here is in direct conflict with that purpose you're saying if the government didn't allow if the court didn't allow you the same thirty five thousand roughly in the e j that's an abuse


instance they they refused to accept the state board the bar associations and analysis they refused to look at a cost of living adjustment and


his credit card payments out of it the he took the fact and i think we have to take pick note of the fact that when he came to that point in time of august when this resolution there's that was overwhelming facts that


deal that put sixty thousand dollars in his pocket that allowed him to be reinstated for the singular purpose of qualifying for the special retirement incentives that occurred during the spring and the


no further discussion or statements from the police invoke the right to counsel and then you just keep talking even vote and you waived the harder question is did the police do something that over bore somebodies


that point is is flatly incorrect and not a basis for denial here beyond that point i'd like to address to mean arguments the first is that the failure of counsel to introduce evidence of p t s d was ineffective


then you get to voluntary manslaughter diminished capacity is he didn't have the ability to to form to form the the basic element of the charge and the inferior offense


opinions get a little sloppy but i think they're talking about prevention concerns about the idea of what happens in assigning cases which is you're raising the interest that is now owned by somebody else even if you were a regional


the rogers group cases are exactly the opposite about the condition of management approval or is this the man that's fine i mean you know maybe that's one reason the jury thought it wasn't a contract that's fine but the question is and


motivation of purpose was but what is clear from this court's precedent and from the statute in the regs is this a broadly remedial statute that is applied numerically where within two to ninety days two groups aggregate to be over the


my client suggest he saw the equipment being used by smiths and so the assumption was sense medic c p was not merged into smith's that there must have been a permission force


not real clear but not bad of what this property looked like and i want you to ignore for just a second the fact that there are a lot of we i'm not particularly personally persuaded but the weeds make a whole lot of difference


what the answer is just tell me what your position is there's the short answer is that there's nothing in the record showing that there are definitively showing that there are improvements on these additional seven acres you know there are improvements because you see


or the one million dollars of sales and nine to ten and is it all that we are talking about in his pleading that it was forty two thousand that he failed to disclose or are we looking at a


would have to sell it all in just a few days prior to this he is essentially encouraging them to have some sort of you know law like database where they can just scan it and then they know


lot the debarment was zero reasonably the jury would have gone down the form and said well they breached the two thousand and eight agreement we've already taken care of the up of the outstanding orders but then what about the two thousand a


to referee public policy debates in this case what they want the jury to do is engage in statutory interpretation look at the affordable care act and if they disagree with my client's view of


statutory interpretation as this court those every day they want them to pay damages to their opponents they want breweries not voters to decide what's in the affordable care act and going to your point


unless you can show as the supreme court has emphasized repeatedly a disprovable assertion of fact in time incorporated they said it's a reasonable interpretation then it's an opinion and people get to offer opinions


over leveraged none of the management left before the end of this they were in the process of building a multimillion dollar new offices in southfield my quiet head his mother and his


argument but the bottom line is he was conspicuous by his presence he had come eighty miles plus one way every day through two winter months he was never late once he did not


was substantially affected there you know and one of the examples of that would be losing your life savings i think there were over six hundred best years in this case we had to show that over one hundred them suffered that kind of insolvency i and i know that number was much larger


correct that was later on implemented in the policy but not in practice and then the policy hew responsible for the situation where it's appropriate policy but not practiced right and that's


willing to hear it because basically what the government's alleging is a death sentence for him in terms of immigration that he claimed heard the proof right right he has a burden to prove never said anything about


did but even if he did the michigan court of appeals in michigan supreme court had the name chronic in front of them and they denied relief they are not we're not required by the federal constitution to grant relief so i would ask that you would affirm the


know well i certainly i think then you fall under absolute false evidence that evidence for instance that if you if the later investigation showed that yes there were


one b s petition on an issue that is really not his responsibility to bring to the court again conflicts are unique in that it is incumbent on counsel to raise these issues and on the court to investigate


it please the court my name is mark griffin and i represent nurses keith ivey and elizabeth mason in this appeal of the district court's denial of their motions to intervene in this


plaintiffs the intervening climb to the now of class certification before the court for a briefing and that included it in their notice of


our briefing shows that the six the seventh circuit has addressed that issue expressly this court could give the court guidance that that is not a a reason to distinguish and not to apply mcdonald


i think these two representatives are representative and are valid class name class members whereas the plaintiffs in that cellar didn't think they were like two different theories of how the case should go forward


despite the medication still constitute a substantial limitation just as in the medical in the case despite the fact that the plaintiff was taking medication he still had difficulty sleeping such that it was sufficient to be a substantial


not all three factors must weigh in favor of the of plaintiff or the defendant or whether the court can you can you can and should weigh those three factors and balance them against each other for a second the court in franchise holdings never referenced


our case in chief most telling of course is that his ruling was totally at odds his ruling like senator smith is totally at odds with the fact that he allowed a laser expert in our photographic expert to give


when i used well i guess the court of appeals didn't exist when i did criminal defense but as i recall it the reason that the state supreme court used to get the whole clerk's record on appeal is that i would always put that in my designation


applied or have the roberts and i hope versus right it's our position that the state applied the same test that the supreme court and that this court have accepted at that time to be the proper cast and the factors


actually asked that his name be removed from a c p s registry of sex offenders and there was a trial on that administrative matter and his name was removed with regard to her accusation against her


disability her own doctor say well the stress issue maybe she's disabled because possibly still suffer from problems due to stress but we've cited i briefed a number of cases that said the possibility of future harm isn't a present


said in response to this coverage this is not and what they even said in response to the motion in limine filed three days ago and the court at that point said pretty much look i want to get on with this case we're going to try it and if you don't like it take


weapon did not have around the chamber and the location of the bullet entry wounds and burning jackson five it does not appear that further investigation by counsel would have undermined this evidence that looks to me like a


that because he had that police reports because he had the discovery that you know because the failure to investigate can be excused but you know i don't think that that's the case at all i think


they can however instead of pulling those assets the receiver distributed them he did so on an interim basis very early on in the case with the reserving all right the receiver specifically identified the


and the whole debate about what this is whether it was still a criminal is therefore relevant here same with the fourteenth amendment we know of course that the fourteenth amendment applies to civil cases younger versus romeo was the civil commitment of


they were presented to me that is correct your honor we do business things with and to the court of appeal that's correct we believe that they were by presented i guess i should qualify that the claims were were inserted in a


limitations if you were to offer an opinion on the effects of the cardiac impairment l j can properly reject that however it's my position that what dr tinker did here is offered an


psychologist partly relies on plaintiff's physical condition that's exactly what happened here dr tankers opinion is really unique from a psychologist he combines the physical and mental aspects throughout


ambiguity that there are some things that the f d a may not cover i don't know what those specific things are i guess what i'm trying to say is i would've been helpful if you told me that at the beginning that you think there may be some friends there and you don't know i'm


prepared person of missions prior to the end of the second calendar quarter prior to the end of june second quel calendar quarter it wasn't faults at all in fact they say in their very next paragraph paragraph sixty three of their


would receive the promise from the municipality to that that the stanleys would be told before before any action was taken before the plot was filed as of the promise was


know i sound like you know i mean it's so how do you if that's true then you're saying that anytime the prosecutor has an independent knowledge of the room around town that's and it turns out in the


he was a member of the twenty for twelve forty nine engineer battalion this was after the military department headquarters which is the positive or e for these records and so they are there really is under these circumstance it's


in order to be authorized through c v rather than just being on duty but you're right or the problem i say yes the problem i have with even raising the issue of race or it's never been raised before they have never


claim first hudsons use of for college classroom to organize a field trip to the w t o protest was not protected by the first amendment this


several issues to raise on appeal and you've narrowed it down to the three most effective you don't want to distract the court with invalid issues here that's simply not the case and i want if we have to look at


clearly was bilateral it required arbitration among employees officers and agents of the corporation it balance the corporation to arbitrate circuit city never has taken the position that it's not required to arbitrate this is not one of those agreements where the


differently when i want to write them initial responses thank you


energy repeatedly refused to include the alpha low level waste as part of the agreement clearly if you're talking about a common understanding of the parties as to the meaning of a term how can the parties have a common understanding when one of the parties is


that's how it was described by ms drake to him and then the issue is at various times he's not as good as other people well the facts as to how he's treated in what is said about his performance


properly maintained correct and it's our position and i think the district court correctly found that those allegations concerning the conduct occurring on tribal property but we don't know welcoming of the truck with the view we have from this record that part of my concern on that


manufacturing plant around the clock and if you didn't have the opportunity to produce the product during that time because of lack of product it's lost forever is there a meaningful difference between special damages as to which there's


what it turns on whether it's you call it special damages or or a general damages years did the person you're trying to charge them with have reason to believe that this would happen and the answer to that is yes when you're talking


circumstances of the parties and you have to look at the terms of the agreement they entered into to determine if the contractual causes or or part of the contract or to visible or not for purposes of


the letter from mr connell's attorney to


we'll talk to mr lucas about whether they're properly challenged or not but i'm wondering because of the fact that some of these allotments have been reviewed and some have not yet been completed would we be better off to remain in this case back to the


they have to be cautious and say what if we lose in the rent is what robinson family says it is so that's going to generate a price so far apart from those dollars point of view when the buyers


time and i believe were overruled now i do believe in the dynamics of a trial that's going on in minnesota the ability then to go in the middle of the trial to run into the district court i submit is not particularly practical i also do some of your honor


compensation for damages to themselves and if that's appropriate under state law and that's what a jury chooses to give them that's what the church should have to give them but they can't then step into the shoes of say and part of what we're going to do is to get the money for the class


of business a plaintiff in an antitrust case can't get another competitor come in and say it's my opinion that their purpose is to put us out of business and say while we have evidence and we went into great


social security number is the trade secret isn't the trade secret the property address the owner at the least eight in the least amount because isn't that what a competitor would need in order to compete in order to use the information in other words the trade secret only protects


court felt that subsection eat was a graph of discretion to the attorney general and let me change the facts slightly and give you a slightly different analogy if i can i don't know the


supreme court in the ninth circuit disagreed with you on that and said not every public employment dispute rises to the level of concern is that your position that if there are any facts underlying


with regard to the effect on interstate commerce why didn't they have a full opportunity to raise the lopez as applied challenge on their direct appeal and why aren't they part now on twenty two fifty five


home in the suburbs of kansas city or some other location in this country which would indicate that it was used primarily for homeowner use the building itself the site giving you in my excerpt of record plus in my argument was


fascinator in regard to the july two thousand contract your honor stated that mr


territoriality of trademark rights trademark rights are created and the laws of each country so it is perfectly appropriate for two different companies to own the identical trademark in two different countries however


owns the trademark here the source of the canadian product this federal need pioneer owns the trademark there then a five's ownership of the trademark an ownership of the goodwill symbolized by the trademark it does not


a couple of those cases were a probation officer cases i don't recall that they specifically addressed the four cars language in the statute but they were dealing with formation officers and it would seem that a


it that's one of the things with entire five that does not cover the judicial branch no wages to the extent title five deals with pay for executive branch employers it does not deal directly with pay for judicial branch employees could does cover benefits such


different things you can vary to get a lot of different goals and that's not enough when you have what the patent office has to do to make a climb of educators identify that goal that you're reaching they identified a goal for death but if you look through the record if you look for the briefing there's no identification on what the


products specific products you've got the patents being reviewed shoes which i would perhaps reasonably interpret is spiffing those patents up for litigation which is about to occur there


two multi multi billion dollar companies with probably hundreds if not thousands of products that compete against each other and one case that we're talking about was filed in two thousand that related to wreck to reflect the shooting but certainly did not reflect relate to these


case was just decided in my client's favor after years and years of litigation in utah where the dot com resides and we won virtually every single issue in that case against one eight


course there's the second opening issue where a well you know there's about four or maybe five things that seem to be missing your honor at the first mark when hearing at the first or at the mark when hearing at the first trial on the first appeal


drives that were in them sometimes in dr who were just to another yes you know again i think when the district court was going through the claim construction


him on the stand in fact in the first lunar injunction motion the district court itself held an evidentiary hearing on its own initiative said i want witnesses to come in here and testify on the questions including the question of irreparable harm and it was on the


such as a robot mounted camera then generates the frames of video in response to the position control signals derived from the content video image we believe that it's very very clear what claim to is addressing we


construing the term controllable image generator as a controllable video recording device because there is consistent across the patent family with the five fourteen patent it's consistent with the


that there was no proof in the record to support that result in fact all of the proof about what would have happened in the absence of daily bridge with that the unit to fuel would have been removed first meaning that


go first because a leak correct and this is mr hendricks answer well my position is as is the unit one manager was to take care of unit one related issues and knowing that the pool being we had fuel in the pool i believe that was the right


over one hundred percent again the average unit value announces derives from the information from the quantity in value submitted by best pack and that were available on the record for example


say well that's also about and which is you're under the statute contemplates that both of those circumstances are kind of unusual and yet you put them together and then you didn't the commerce department put those


believe that he didn't raise notice at that point if he was he did not know not at that point base and yet he signed this this letter acknowledging that he didn't show without saying well i


doesn't have that the patent has a ram between the head and tail section that lets the head fold relative to the tail so they're not the same there really wasn't copying as as is normally thought of that wasn't a replication if you


there may be a collateral attack even if there's a failure to appeal there was a failure to appeal in christopher a village and it did not stop this court from considering the collateral attack on the judgment it is a very narrow set of circumstances your honor i will


withdrawn and clean construction that


an ideal candidate for suspended release because everyone is killed they are new when you went the direction suspended release you had a slower ramp up period so you don't you know i'm going to start with thirty seven percent in the first thirty minutes you're going to have some lesser percent it's going to take you longer to build up and


the forms they use you do read the statutes have a second requirement is that you have to show that these were necessary for verification well here they were and i what you're asking i think is that if there were see a


in testing the test well i think the board tried to answer that question by saying that but even if he has very wide latitude very wide latitude but but presumably when that's well it's a good start but the board is that latitude and is there a way to characterize


its configuration and how it generates this information from its database when the judge in the lower court took generating the screen display and added the requirement that the


status based upon the opinion received in this case was unchanged they still didn't have sufficient evidence to decide the case and what in your view is sufficient evidence


claims there must be a preponderance of evidence against the claim the preponderance of the evidence in this case is based upon a medical opinion that was a non opinion with the government has to disprove serves to


just tell us that no what i'm saying is if this court were to find there is a legal argument what they're they're creating a legal argument in this case where it doesn't fit the board here found a medical examination probative and the veteran the secretary found it sufficient


now let's talk about what congress intended in our brief we refer to the explanatory statement of the relevant statute here for the v a s duty to


touched on so many issues that in such a cursory fashion i spend enormous amount of time dependency and i can't get the details of your argument and so when you're up against a substantial evidence jury verdict sure that leaves at a loss so i need to know exactly what he


code was not enough as for the market switching issue and the objections of the methodology judge rader we did object the trial that's at eight thirty seven zero six zero seven that he was switching markets that that was


do this case but this is not you know this is not an ordinary case you know pat this court is is charged with dealing with patent infringement so lawsuits that have unique and and difficult issues in it up themselves


first of all you want if you look at for example one fourteen what they're drawing here are what they claim to be reasonable inferences from the facts that they've pled not actual facts and they've been very careful in their complaints to talk about what they claim are reasonable inferences of what they claim are actual facts


the way that claim one is drafted it presents many practical applications and that which is left over is is is merely the computer doing nothing


in a nutshell and i just wanted to answer answer the last question about had we argued and we we had on the point of obviousness when it was a fair bit of a discussion from council i


jurisdiction over that claim with respect to mr pouria was assertion that the v a somehow made misinterpretations of law that this court would have jurisdiction over the court did not make any of


communicate with a client when initially retained forty eight minutes was necessary to communicate with the client regarding the significance of the summary of issues that there was paired and one hour was to discuss a joint motion to remain and and the attorney for the application and that's going


i did a search for after every where the word appears in the specifications doesn't appear very often but here's a workplace where it does it's state so this is after so you wait a selected access time then drive the data onto the bus right


right thank you thank you


enough but it even got better because he was then impeached with his deposition testimony which is the next part of that citation the last line of which says that would disclose every element now the only difference


a total of four cases two of them are not being argued but will be submitted later today just on the briefs two submitted cases our appeal number thirty two fourteen from two thousand and nine austin versus merit system


while there might it may be true that there is a genetic predisposition that there has to be a trigger of some sort to create this condition if we're going to assume that the person is susceptible


i want to go to where meant to happen for ended up and where which is exactly where i started with you which is is this just indicative of the possibility that you will get a disorder or is it the congressman's ordering you said that it was the cause of the disorder


tyco group and mr de maggie explains we would have taken a different approach in a sense that my answer would be that we would have we would have definitely followed through with the acquisition but we would have asked committee and as the owner of to georgie to make sure that


and that position must include the second shoulder in the group fifty two and in fact the specification does define the second position as when that happens that the second point that the commission looked at


matter finally i think that there's a public policy issue in that we want to have whistleblowers to keep making whistleblower allegations we don't want to chill and curb low level or speed by not granting


soluble in one than it is in the other they are different forming the dispersion into a layer well we'll get into that if we go back to the district court where it you argued to the district court in connection with the claim instruction that two different


then your argument that the district court misunderstood the factual allegations or read facts to the factional geishas in the complaint different than you are advocating today and if that's the case how do we have jurisdiction conservatives appeal now well you have


do under those circumstances


because unless the jury thought that the evidence on inflight was exactly five thousand and fifty then why would the a different structure and as to the burden of proof have changed the outcome i tend to agree with you on the on the burden of


became involved in this case which was about a year after it was dismissed we have offered a chance and everything they want they served depositions pinas all my clients and we sat down and they were deposed


to protect their anonymity the jury asked them the questions in the deposition putting the complaint side by side with the declaration and say this you know your honor


think the question here this prejudice question here is whether he would have opted to go to have that proceeding and yes your honor everything in the evidence suggests that mr logan would have done that he went to trial he refused to guilty pleas he chose to


and ninety one is originally and acted in two thousand and seven didn't have any mandatory minimums for anything it was changed alternately after all


legislators may they spend a lot of time doing these things i think they mean what they say a plain language is what it is the ambiguity that it's only come when you try to torture it as the


respond to have been informant and now seek revenge on this account responded testimony in this regard was only that he believes our com is aware because the barber in a few months community told a friend respondent was seeking information about him and the friend relayed this hour on


gainfully employed and it just doesn't reflect the social functioning deficiencies that she has nor does it cite the fact that she's probably going to miss four


percent acceptance of the claims testimony it does not reflect one hundred percent acceptance of dr hammond's form but it does reflect a logical reasonable conclusion from the full evidentiary picture it


appears to foreclose the claim i would argue that the united states supreme court's line in that matter represented a holding for application of the procedural component of the


remains in at an adequate that's two hundred and ninety two a r three hundred and forty two civil rights are not properly protected and respected gay and bisexual jamaicans are often denied access to protection under the law


and found any way that she could to get out of that violence to say you know it's been shown over and over again that victims of mexico violence will find some way to get out of that including


if he wasn't to petitioners knowledge doing this to any other person any other woman he was doing this to her because she lived in the home and he felt that he had power over her and he used that power


again the petitioner only has to prove that one motivating factor of her persecution was that she was a member of a particular group so if it while this while the i'm


acquainted with the people in our rural town mary j find that she testified credibly and heard her testimony was entitled to full


dealt with an actual instance i j saying there was no cooperation right that's not what occurred here so did that did that happen did the i g somewhere in the record say listen i don't think this is


asked to write letters for him our more specific in those letters but the agency found that it just didn't change the outcome of their earlier decision and although i and


that the agency did consider it but we have really no indication of that and to answer the question we have we embraced the attorney general which provided let's deal with the standard of you mr law you have to demonstrate that the record


united states supreme court decision about whether an unauthorized driver had a reason why expectation of privacy in a rental car and why was it stinks question from the one here the court made quite clear that really all that matters as far as


again that remains a possibility right so if it's if it's if it's a possibility in both williams and here and then this this this state which is a peculiarity of


out that underlying conduct is not even outlawed in many states and is and that's a very different case from what we have here and not only do we have crusher sectional consensus but we have here congress also in one thousand nine hundred and eight in passing its federal highway


and the court didn't question whether or not that that the whole thing a situation in that case involved a provider that properly thought with me at the app uses the words to the public sometimes to describe providers and sometimes it just says electronic communication service provider


told that they're under threat and it was just that explicit that there is no right that should have been take there's no countervailing interest that should have been taken account here i think you could have is that the


that i think i could have two answers on that as to why in that particular circumstance disclosure may be justified and in fact under a hypothetical probably would be in my view and st and foremost perhaps is that the victims rights act actually does provide a right


to that to that latter point it's one once again and this is we're not aware of of any circumstance where where a where it's where a state has where a party litigant has taken subsidies from the state to prosecute


we seek interlocutory review by this court using what we would characterize as the appropriate standards to judge the pleadings as they stood before the district court and not let edition or facts and


statement participated in taking the statement that's not what it sounds it only says he arranged for it to take place in the local police station after three or four different statements were already gathered


or have been approved or they didn't know anything about it and they were misled absolutely i mean it's clear under federal civil procedure eight d that at the motion at this meeting stage we can put in the alternative and only


been pleaded here sufficient to at least raise the question and warrant further discovery beyond a finding of sovereign immunity on the face of the pleadings because we think there is enough on the face of the pleadings we think


out a statement that all you need to do is find out that the accomplice committed a crime those are the you know i understand we're supposed to look at this the whole but i'm trying to find some


back for a retrial he would want that either so we want we want good clean instruction i mean i realize this one is not the best not the most eloquent i realized that i do think they take everything into consideration the whole thing they


we're asking this court to affirm the order of the district court properly dismissing appellants complaint in its entirety for several reasons the removal of the word new from the early statute was a procedural modification that did not violate the expo's


evaluations recommended his release here i mean we have quite the opposite we have psychological recommendations that are absolutely not recommending release on l s i are to indicate a high risk of recidivism you know we have eat the panel


the only legal question in this case the only legal standard that needs to be applied the state also noted that nothing in the law it's expressly requires the parole board to consider this old


one and consequently it's not fully fully merged that seems to me to be a and attenuation of reasonableness and i can't there's no evidence to


they certainly can terminate for convenience but nov and get it day from november till december so why isn't that consideration that they they would have had to stay even a few stuart on on the day


mislead doesn't doesn't to falsify connote some trickery indeed if the statute is defining materially but not redefining for us what to falsify needs


technical matter and again we're looking at this as a as a category it would then go home with q spam it would it would it would fall within the can spam act if an addition to using


i would because but again because it's not concrete doesn't regulate it within that very small fifteen foot buffer zone which has in fact proved to work it does not draw distinctions based on the


you point to something in her discussion of the motion to dismiss to help us with this so i hope i'm not one of my colleagues but i really look i don't want to send this back to her unnecessarily frankly you shouldn't want to go back to her and


goes to his his claims as far as chain of title predating the existence of the commonwealth of pennsylvania and if if he were merely making an argument about as judge phipps i believe suggested by wham's been taken


those issues they're going to it would require the federal courts to wade into sort of the nuts and bolts of pennsylvania's and domain statute and determine whether or not you know this land does qualify as public use for the


the b i a there is a bureau of indian affairs which had a way to assess who gets out who gets benefits in terms of whether you're on a reservation or near a reservation and the supreme court in that case said well not withstanding it's an internal manual and it's


the world of cases a little bit more narrow you have examples where you can have serious bodily injury without the use of force but like state court in pennsylvania yes if you starve your children or lock somebody up and don't give them


may have please the court more or when from the u s attorney's office on behalf of the government starting with the issue of the intervening harassed it's our position there really is no issue before this court with regard to the intervening arrest what mr lay history else was


race i submit to the court that that's a clear indication that she did call the p s a and that the p a just didn't order anything else and that she communicated that to the player so i know


is entirely incompetent when they walk into a bank and he accidentally hands over a demand note he's guilty the judge and the jury would have to look at all the circumstances i presume you could come up with a crazy scenario in which somebody is so incompetent at that moment


judgment against a ship and ram being the maritime portion of the case so you always need the conduct of a cox a carrier in order to to go forward against a ship in ram and here


admitted in the argument earlier that they fully assess the situation in this was a conscious decision


analysis of what pennsylvania law would be with respect to the case you have what you are think our point procedure and i don't think we're saying anything differently from what you said is


short supply well and we didn't we didn't think that the summary judgment fact pattern was adenike also the fact pattern a trial and there were a lot of differences in terms of discussion of nonis vessels containing alternatives and required to send those sorts


and so here so you have one comment from trooper brothy him is it up your ass trooper botting is plainclothes no weapon visible anyway he poses it a question he poses it in a normal tone of voice no search of that kind


duty so mr feel included within his response brief in reference that should the court decide that the complaint is insufficient that amendment would be requested


know what it says of if even if you don't have a letter there is no the rabbit decision states that i've not seen a case in research circuit commenting either way on that other than the pearson decision which


and that change will only occur in unique circumstances that i can writing or like in car canyon where the parents have a shared intent for the child to make that decision on her own after the summer does not cut the other way i e if you're talking about a child who's


with look at the circumstances it depends on what's in his mind her call wasn't the police are going to get a warrant and come to your house the car was the police are on their way to your house to look at your computer i had playing the court to survive which might be the most similar


patrolling for illegal taxes there's nothing in there showing the police or watching the fight much less they overheard the slurs and that's the reason why they fail to intervene all right so is it your argument then that that incident did not rise to the level of torture


congress and their intent congress entitle sevens prohibited discrimination provision contrary to its retaliation provision used different language and that's different language gives


record right do you know where that information is available to the customer currently provides that information what we're talking about with regard to the state will which is now in effect


here i would i would like to talk about the fair debt collection practices i appreciate that because i am concerned with respect to your argument because


this based upon additional information it is not a denial of the claim that and we've dealt with back situation where there were rockets that were filed two three years after after ross occur i won't go back to


this position has to be really approved in the political process every year if you didn't expect to lose the job because of the political process the legislature wouldn't have done it they would have given the person tenure or they would have continue as a


injury in fact corpses what's the legally protected interest if we think you're wrong about the merits interpretation of the statute in the interest fact is quite quite quite simple this statute was passed to protect the


i heard some noise in that room you know there were five guys and a woman in there you know i think there was a rape that went on now that's a different stance and there's no more we don't have the right that suggests that would be enough for them to go out and arrest but on the facts here


fraud and what the court held was that that was not a allegation or transaction of fraud it was you know it was just it would it would go against the purpose of the false claims act which would be to encourage whistleblowers and you know protect the government


is very significant and what my colleagues talked about this is just the fact that there's a true a cause is an important fact is that there is a true across and it wasn't enforced that is the key piece of information our client knew that that trip because it wasn't forced to the on


own destiny worse worthwhile and i'm happy to hear that you're all working together is that so you check that off my list is obviously our goal here is to figure out the most efficient way to get the issues in front of the court i think appropriate time


is fairly clear that that suffices even though it's unusual breath but what the court did say it's the bill is that as the object of the search becomes more general the


based on perception that he's a dissident because of his association with this rock and his former roommates responded his residence is likely that he would be forced to confess sentenced to a number of years in abject prison conditions if it is not


i don't think any of this matter from a constitutional perspective it's i think i think that there are there are several reasons why the occurrence of these delinquencies and just i'm glad i had the opportunity to describe i


good morning if it please the court i'd like to start with three key points that set up set out our position point number one the property deprivation at issue here is a


if an officer does not have zero reasonable justification for that seizure you know we don't look at whatever happens after we look at what is going on out of the moment of


that there was no fraud but that the pressure stays on the demand for more continues and the assertions about what you can all was get made not because you have a legitimate interest in protecting residual


that's about something you got it you've got it and maybe and maybe we've got your position there isn't anything more to say about it when you say all we're asking for some way to further inquiry and what the state court handle it at the end of the day we have to ask the question


privilege the test is not that ms shot had to be involved and and pursue a criminal prosecution the test is is there some colorable nexus between the action taken that michelle is alleged to have taken


agent hill could be released as a witness well again the agent who could be released as a witness because at that point the prejudiced to the the findings in those reports that at that point the defense was unable to tackle anything


quote to give a statement of the facts it's actually broader and again it's it seems to be kind of a lesser more informal notification and then the second is a more formal would be made by notification


a statute designed to encourage industry in the private sector to invest in the nuclear power and the nuclear weapons making industries in order to induce them to participate in an industry that obviously from obvious reasons has great


things usually pursued well the reason she's not pursued should pursue those conversations because she attempted to use a bible procedure in the state court to determine whether the ordinance is unconstitutional whether it's the taking and the township argued you have to have a


bill what does that mean it means in this context that if there's a statute that says this claim cannot be subject to a preterist view of arbitration agreement it is


position that if it's not in the coleman declaration then a question of fact hasn't been joined essentially yeah i mean i think that by the way i'm not looking at the coleman declaration might use the word local it does not use the word interstate


expression and i think this is the point hinted at at the gary g case went when they suggest although he didn't rule that fees are not grounds for rejecting an offer and i keep coming back to this offer was very favorable to the child would have


as a protection for the car over but not as something that can be used to turn phiona from the shooting in to court or whether it's for statutory damages whether it's for reimbursement just described as clearly held bed


family may use the car looking at the statements perhaps consulting with counsel but they also want to be sure aside if they choose to conduct their investigation based on the information presented and if there is equitable tolling


and taking away the ability to use cost of bonding approach and then not really looking at the effect the economic impact of picking a weight that was so most for a seven year period ends up being harmful and punitive and in effect in the way that


so we we know we have a regulation i'll be passed by d o j but one that informs the definition of reasonable modification why then would there be any


need to do their job to understand the das an issue that is the same a course in the determining how long a sentence can be without running afoul of miller without becoming life without parole how we


they're not considered off how much life mr grant would have to leave the media outside of prison bars in order to have the fulfillment and the reconciliation that the screen quote discussed in milligrams and so what


halves of that of the court statement were inaccurate it would be one thing if the record showed that the court had been about to impose a judgment only on count three because the court was aware of this


case so with respect to accident my client to meet after her when she has to go into a dark cold room to get surprised feet that are located in that room in that room which she said was dimly lit and she


pillages that was self expects to it that somehow automatically eliminated this season change the season corporation and rethink it tonight that's not correct it took it took an election for the city the city had


but i would like to say that i don't believe there are i mean if you view all of the evidence in the record if you consider all of the testimony that was provided on i i just don't believe that that there was i mean the primary residence again and


sellers the pointis were developers and builders and the purchasers were unhappy with the with the residences and wanted to bring an action after


taken as a whole all of those public and private sector sectors strongly favored moving the case transfer in the case to another county he found that they didn't and in reviewing the public and private interests factors it's clear that they do now


particularly after the visit time during christmas time two thousand and fifteen and his person period of time thereafter


proceeding the natural for should be given the discretion and granted the ability to make that decision because after all she is in the seat down there and what's most important in this case are the children i had with her first me to think that we're talking about


cool and i think that's one of the hallmarks of the educational system in this state which is preserved now christine the efforts that the state has me to set some academic standards and to provide additional fines and they have is that different school this which can


question did you shoot your brother in the foot to which he replied i'm not going to answer that question without my lawyer his question was a mission is his response was a response to that question and it was in my opinion it was


defendant told the police that he was not willing to give them a written statement well this is really just speak to them as a supreme build pointed out on the asian was accompanied by an affirmative willingness to speak


licensing agreements it had not yet asked the department about this and the audience did not happen to go to that part of red boxes taxes when there's a nd on red box inquires the department


hope that it would be clarified this time around because you never go over saying too much or too little too you see what happens but in this case what happened was at trial level nobody got it and


politic hernia which is a hernia that


little bit of background in for nothing more and has nothing to do with with the case other than that it's been produced in discovery that was conducted since the preliminary injunction was entered through


and number two or that the mother had somehow some sort of motive to end things with way ignoring wanted to do so in a dramatic fashion the implication being that she was encouraging r w to


rearrange the experts schedules people who are coming from out of town he's witnesses who testified for the state appear friendly for the state and he testified for a short time i don't think it would have been that much of an inconvenience to


the courts shall advise him that he escapes from custody or is released on bond and fails to appear in court his failure to appear constitutes a witness right to confront witnesses against him in trial could


trying to make with this is that the file this appeal because d c i fast proceedings are not to be substituted for custody hearings there protect children or even children from the hounds so if you're a disgruntled parent


should recognize that mr harris is as was discussed with justice worton effectively a child in terms of his culpability and his ability to understand what his sentence actually means for these reasons we would ask this court to reduce mr harris a sense


is arguing that the because a g l with the child knows it but this is not a case where this action was brought on behalf of the child as this act was brought by someone else involved the child and then when the mother room action to declare


access to transcripts so this was a textbook case of a trial within a trial on our case allegations and again r k was not the complainant in this case not only that but the trial court's errors made this even worse


like to say that you specifically point to a material fact that is disputed in the record that the judge should have not been summary judged


comprehensive general liability policies it said nothing about the employer's liability coverage that is at stake here one year later in two thousand and eleven


instead what you have is a is a test is being terribly subjective i mean you've got you've got public factors you've got private factors you've got a preference or a heavy finger


on page four of its opinion this court is in line to the guidance of the united states supreme court but the courage to strictly construe a contract against the interests of the party that drafted it and then decided to mansker wrong


if if it if if it's required to be a resolution by the county board that is that it's open to the public and so the person that is the subject of investigation will be aware that they will be true that will be tracked now the state


trial date have been continued like nine months so well whether it was relevant or not whether or not it was admissible or not i don't really know because that was really never


that's what this that's why they're going to the explanations roland mr vincent what do you have to say about the fact about the arguments that the two thousand and nine letter


absolutely no idea what the jury thought we don't know if the jury thought there was a right it really doesn't matter for you to ask for o j and me on the one hand you're saying a one million and seven is within


occurred in that time and we believe that you know as the trial court allowed they said you know we're going to lead a vigorous cross examination on this this evidence is admissible but it might not it might not have great weight because you could the defendant was well within its rights


they have nothing to do with a forty year case so i think buffer completely resolves the sentencing issue and i think the question and the important question the before this court is the confession and


but i could see that it gets transferred into quite gross on the existing briefs and the administrative record given the fact that the administrative record is what it is arguably maybe no supplemental briefs would be needed and the case could be transferred for


said that the district court construed the term in the exclusion well engaged in as meaning as a result of in other


sole issue on appeal in this is whether the restitution order is valid as opposing counsel mentioned in the hayes case looking at that


amount our position is simply trial court didn't follow the statute trial court has to decide whether it should be paid all at once or in installments i think everyone agrees here it's obvious


fs has been involved in his family since he can remember boston has a history of self mutilation cutting suicides has been diagnosed with major depressive


kitchens staff stove used for cooking at the restaurant and continues in the same manner for have a period of time in operation there was no shutdown there was nothing nothing out of the ordinary


and the doctor said that's right i don't think he would have been taking medication but for that prior petition for involuntary medication so i investigated that i investigated that because in an


has a good understanding about medications and is willing to take medication this is a compliance issue with two when i was seven point one of the mental health code and if


well there are there are six if you want to see certificates and the record indicating that counts are due the entire record of proceedings but counsel's comments and other actions in the records show that he did not there was a


that could be determined to be willful and wanton but wouldn't matter if it were willful and wanton unless it were a course of conduct involved that is how those cases had


the allegation that the dispatcher refused is made multiple times and sufficiently subject to proof of course but in the pleading stage sufficiently alleges a reckless


had the dispatcher sent miscued of police officers to the scene my client's life might very well be a lot of i am not at the stage of summary judgment although that type of ruling was imposed on me my


supporter or a donald trump supporter and they had their t shirt on saying i support joe i support donald and they're holding their bile in their hands that's completed and they take about the doings by the


you know the case law that we've presented to this court specifically recognizes the do sherry duties in a couple of different i know but you got my question you've got to show fiduciary duty right because the neck it turns don't do it well i guess my argument would


otherwise they just can't get there on the face of the contract judge government you know being very familiar with north code a lot took that into account interpreted these contracts on their face cording to the plain meaning and and then you know


nebraska incorrectly ruling that there was probable cause to arrest obols b it is residence and incorrectly ruling that heine and lesson were entitled to qualified immunity as to ogle's be excessive force


any legal support they not only did not consider our facts as being true they didn't even consider that the the we did not plead a case based on ownership


in its regulations and its guidance that it has never interpreted section eleven as covering a mutual to mutual merger that's just not something that the r c c who i said drafted that charter has ever interpret it as covering


the trial judge ruled at page thirteen that he could not a portion follow v m e because it had no duty to alter the bridge as a matter of law but a reduction in damages to a bridge owner's own


she's not before us so as a matter of law that kind of undercuts the s and m authority right i would still disagree because you would just simply go back to walt and ok or how much i will let you get to walk one of the thing on s


favorably to us and not merely accepting the defendant's denial if the defendants want to try to argue the interpretation of those statistics that's totally fair game but again the structures of


but at the time it's just equally true to say that it simply looked up but most importantly as this court point out mr ring didn't tell anybody he didn't tell his mom he didn't tell anybody it came out after mr hanssen was arrested and it hit the news


appointed to the main cases that the government is concerned with the contrary case that the district court does not abused their discretion by had many experts expert witnesses testimony when government's notice of


is that individual breed such as the breeds that have been banned here are no more dangerous than any other breed of dogs as a result the ordinance lacks a rational


particular eagle or the the group of eagles that the sixty three feathers came from but you don't you don't have restitution linked to the offense a conviction we have restitution linked to the trafficking because


facts are supposed to determine in summary judgment if they're disputed i see my time is up or thank you


only a matter of two and a half months before he was trying to transfer again this time to court staging where he supervised twenty people significantly more than he supervised and patrol so this two and a half month time period


part he has been out in the community so that means he has had the opportunity to re offend and has not done so this is not someone who committed a forcible rape was in prison for ten years and then got out and had a condition imposed upon


somehow discriminated discriminatory and never said that he was participating in protected activity by debating what the contents of a doctor's note should say that simply wasn't something that was in the record so there is


recommendations were that he would have a permanent amalgam placed in the interim he placed two temporaries in that same huth which my dentist deemed sufficient my dentist also did complete a prisoner medical request to approve that permanent failing that


the judge decided well you've got the judge premised on the on page seventy four that we would have sought the warrant anyway what if she believes that you know what that was they were simply being asked if he didn't get consent and i believe that was consent if


like that and that's i mean this is other names ridge somewhere this is this is the danger of having cases like this decided on a preliminary injunction record what under the bridge well


otherwise be allowed to vote except for that requirement so do i understand you to be saying that what at least one category that the district court would allow under this and junk most recent injunction is


context i'm out of time thank you very well thank you for


is no fact issue either all of the well i mean that's the ultimate legal issue that the court can determine and determining that it's can be done as a matter of law based on the underlying facts and that's exactly what judge erickson did


finds that she can do like work with the sit stand option i think the understanding or the at least the implicit aspect of that finding is that she can stand for most of the day but occasionally needs to sit


worth noting that there's not a lot of medical evidence in this record the state agency reviewing physicians did consider the physical treatment notes they considered dr crowley's part of his for his records up until i believe it was


a stakeholder may not compel a party to litigate his claim in the inner pleader unless he deposits with the court an amount equal to the sum claimed by that party i would suggest your honor that that is similar to a an amount


evidence there was looking at the record in light most favorable to the verdict a reasonable jury could have concluded that a conspiracy was reached in twenty million eighty two thousand and nine


between individuals that are called in the brief as the medina group who are out of wisconsin to sourced large amounts of cocaine to the quad city area into the muscatine area in the southern district of iowa there was evidence


for a lawsuit your honor yes he could have the supervisor was the one brought in because the supervisor was the one who was in charge of this


and in the juries and the but the i will law allows for these issues to go yes and the jury then would need to make that


buying the property buying the real estate that is correct that is that has been the paddocks argument all along that mr or mrs bennett have effectively perhaps not a fee simple


she didn't she she had said that she had a she or her experience was and totally satisfactory solution i mean she used different words but she also made it clear that she had not been


we're basing this decision on stereotypes not on what mr williams said that would would qualify me let me challenge you a little bit because you know that all of the all of the reasons given at least most of them strike


do his particular job that there were nuances and peculiarities of his job that he couldn't perform but he never argued and never presented evidence that he was unable to perform the job as it was perform the


ultimately a falsity inquiry because again when you're talking about whether a statement is misleading as opposed to whether it's literally false whether it's misleading you've got to look at the omitted information in the in


not the kind of information that a reasonable investor would rely upon the other another thing that thirteen statements have in common is all but two of them eleven out of the thirteen all allegedly


mean in this case you're basically talking about the entire case in chief that the government presented at trial well i have two answers to that one i think in theory that's not a hindrance oftentimes you know in


two or three things you should address one is she previously tried to set this house on fire twice that's favre you know we take the evidence at this point of the day ok and she made statements to him


between the two towns she parked in the abandoned school parking lot he walked into the house was gone came back and she asked did you get a going i believe the first time he said no the second time he was more


of the same drain tile line that then exit out of the property so the ones upstream if you will that are up the line could be but you couldn't just do the bottom one


start losing not production and and then they are criticize just saying you didn't prove lost profits because you didn't show us how much less hey you had to feed the fewer cows that you had because some died and you


is the twenty third documentary three fifties the the lower court the defendants filed the motion to sell substantially all the assets that motion which detailed the the


wide open to these pay there's another tax will probably you haven't and that's the uncompensated payments having sometimes the headings are added by that's not the revise or statutes but whatever the federal equivalent has this was actually


and incur all those extra costs that are necessary to encourage serving the population originally dish did not have a limit on it and states were free to pay hospitals as much as they wanted to and the legislative history describes how you know some


by and conform to any and all regulations of the secretary of interior and i think your honor the district court got it right when to recognize that the determination of whether plain was breached the mineral leases by failing to


of litigation the sovereign immunity prevent the plaintiffs from recovering fees paid the course of litigation yesterday and as in this case would that apply in this case yeah


have an impairment a soft tissue injury of an upper or lower extremity and it requires state surgical proceedings which are meant to salvage or restore a major


application of the word design also there was a dispute about whether the other two features in fact that anything to do with the fully automatic capabilities of the firearm there was also a factual dispute as to the length of the firearm and whether that had any impact on


lawyer he doesn't get a hearing this is all sort of done outside of the record in fact a district court that i'm not going to consider this and the supreme court said yes you should have considered this but well actually you doesn't make a difference to us i don't think that


second half of the pickering balance that's what that's the part i don't quite understand in the sense that if we if the allegation was that letter are that they're a letter to elsewhere was written in the honolulu magazine and we have this evidence that


of murder one two times and is serving double life sentences without the possibility of parole i think it's too important to just kind of slough are off and say well she's not believable and i think that she is a leader because why would she lie now


know what does he say about when he first became aware he doesn't explicitly say when he first became aware the state argued in its brief that it was december two thousand and one it's not specific about when that was he he admits that he didn't see


and therefore i don't believe you can support a claim and or the government code section because he did receive care ok thanks very much response


i just i think that that by looking at the principles of bad faith by the principles insurance laws of developed in california looking at kate's which is the case of counsel cited on the surety reimbursement sort of issue


corpus what he's claiming is that even though he agreed to speak to the officers that his miranda rights were violated because the officers quote lied to him now i think that the trial court had serious


for another ten or eleven days but i think that in that event let me ask you to explain what we can do with the or what you would have us do with with the more decision i understand your argument focuses on supreme court decisions for good


is easier than the second one but again i think that one is i think that once easier and so if you don't as a matter of law if you can't establish that if if that gets past the first then it would seem to me that the


told come here come to mediations notice he was asked whether he was failed to do that he was required to do what was it first and foremost to respond to that request when the when a


the feeling are i have to agree with you on that i would think you wouldn't be trying to talk and i am not trying to talk you out of that position that is obviously our backup position our position is we believe the judge


wanted to exclude certain sections within that chapter from the ambit of section two hundred seven it knew how to do so and did so explicitly it didn't do that in section two fifty one in two fifty two it didn't say that once an interconnection agreement and


specifically he grabbed and squeezed my crotch four times that's not just fighting an accidental bumping that's describing a deliberate touch to her genitals she then later said he was flying me into bed that i might have thought


expert said that there's virtually no pulling force in the situation i guess i can put a supplemental excerpt of record got we got it and that is the


trying to help you so they keep going back to the whole tone of this whole and interrogation is that the only way he can help himself and get out of his jammies and get out of the custody that he's


respect to whether the reasons changed if you compare what he was told on the eighteenth of or the eighth of september memorialized in the memorandum on the eighteenth of september with what was in the position statement they are a precise match the reasons did not


keep in mind that the standard should reflect the current scientific and evidence of what is required for help and alan was decided ten ten years


your claim for injury or loss of property is less than the car mack amendment number follow hunter and if it's more follow the statute that's they can do and that would mean you


just proves damages were delayed lost or damaged doesn't have to allocate fault between different shippers and gets a claim decided within a short period of time sixty days and my at westfield here and thinking with


and i i read that as consistent with what i just said that if the carrier for those claims over the five thousand dollar amount does not agree the arbitration proceeds is simply not binding the


four and the court said there's that's not retroactive because you're not changing what these people are going to get reimbursed for in eighty four you're changing what they're going to get reimbursed for later on they in eighty four it's true to use the same


he gets a higher paying job or if someone were to give him money for example at the time involved in the complaint for which there is a record and i'd refer the court to page eight