people do that yes because a lot of people have more than one pet so you know if you will if you're going to select a grave then you might want to think about the grave for the you know the other pets there some day we're going to lose and we all know that so this way you can secure a spot right


who's a state senator that you know we pray is mom is one of his constituents and was right his attention so there were rallies there were press conferences and everything based on that law to better the lives of our of our the animals and protect their


commercial distinction for foreign nation immunity now kind of statute or common law that was common law common law development an effort dunhill now shortly after that congress did enact the foreign sovereign immunity act which essentially codified


somehow all those remedies are circumscribed to imperfect remedies like ex parte young which may or may not be successful or arresting our own citizens and that's not respecting the constitutional sovereign that michigan represents in this case and to get back to a


issue at the hearing is what the government presents at that hearing as compared to what the defense presents at that hearing no different i submit that in civil cases under rule sixty five we're a judge holds an interim hearing


with the fact that i think that there is harm and there's very little benefit and i want to turn to both sides of that empirical equation before the court concludes that for the first time a grand jury indictment can be contradicted by educational finding that there is no probable cause


both of them for example section b of this statute makes it illegal to impede block obstruct or even hinder somebodies access to the clinics and that section the statute is not challenged here never has been what do you know i should probably


ask for money and that's the only way i can get it and this court said you have ample communication channel alternative channels over in that booth in frisby what the protester wanted to do was target a house and what this court said in frisbee was you have alternative channels of communication


dance you're saying federal prosecutions can't tell when people are deliberately obstructing i'm saying here are you on this is beyond the realm of the law i'm saying what's at issue here your honor is not that kind of deliberate obstruction what the testimony before the


say stay out of the doors until they do that the claim that they have to throw their hands up and put people in prison for peaceful speech is not a very persuasive claim secondly all of the evidence that the united states cited cited you to from the record all of it boston


hired one they don't have the power to enforce their own immunity in their laws on another state if that's what's being given full full faith and credit under the argument here that if you're riginal argument that the fact is that the board has changed its argument


correct that in seattle what we were dealing with was an elected school board and here is the michigan brief says is that when state brief says as the court specifically found it ages three twenty six eight and three twenty seven a of the record this is a political process


any affirmative action program was adopted with the result being the same it would your honor because because it would be building in this explicitly facial racial classification into the state constitution the problem or the separated


imposed after the trial when there was no testimony and there was a trial what was that what would what do you think a trial court could reasonably do with that situation just split the difference well i think the trial court has a lot of discretion under the court's opinion but i think


two thousand and five which is known as calf show that it does not extend to state parents bought for a actions there any doubt on the matter cough it would have to be narrowly construed as a matter of the principles of federalism that are


emphasized in class action case after class action case there has to be a rigorous analysis to ensure that there are actual common questions based on the fact actual the well claims asserted and we think this that there's


workers from puerto rico and the court there one of the objection was this is not sufficient cause the sovereign interests to support a parent's patri i case and what this court said was that you can't just look at numbers because those people represent


around the country just sitting back and waiting until every as private class actions proceed and as soon as one settles or one the plaintiffs in the class prevails taking the same complaint maybe


driving force behind this statute was to put interstate claims of national importance into federal court to to provide the option of a federal forum and and in that case in standard fire this court unanimously


for an arbitrary or discriminatory for us that's what we understand that standard to big out of brown v thompson and again that was a plurality opinion but under that stand i don't actually understand i don't know of any case where


kind that the court has many times a criticize there's lots and lots of other hispanic people in the state of arizona we're not in these districts but that's because they're spread out all over the places so if you're going to draw a compact districts if you're going to draw districts that respect county boundaries if you


representative and we don't have our own vehicle so the free rider justification is far weaker in the collective bargaining context than it is in the union lobby context is that carbon is it ok to force somebody to contribute to


individual right something perhaps against capital punishment the court has consistently ruled against it so i guess if that's ever considered again under your view the court would give no weight to stari


our point of view but also perceived by the employees as representing their interests which is walk we can take it over ahead and well which is why is very important that we not fund that directly and that we not be perceived as


it promote teachers on the basis of seniority or on the basis of perform all of those questions are necessarily political questions that's that's the major argument made by the other side and you're i don't disagree with that but it does not change the fact that as a government we


to govern particular workplaces for particular periods of time and that involves compromise it involves reaching some decisions on some of these issues and many of them are controversial but we need to have concrete decisions with one group of employees represented by one union to do that and as the where does the state of


articulated the scope of an employee's duties in the termination whether employees acting in the scope of those duties is a practical inquiry and so it would vary considerably case the case i think the fact of a subpoena is strong evidence that when an employee testifies


statutory interpretation and if that is so are there any statutory rules that work in your favor that is to say avoiding a constitutional question or what how do we think about this case primarily the statutory i


the sudden it doesn't provide health care to its employees and in order to compensate for that it would have to increase the wages and i think it would be worse off as a result of this but if i could also say that that's right let's say that they have to increase the wages a little bit i mean


accommodation because the employees get the coverage of this out of season issue that's being hotly litigated right now right whether the employees can get the coverage when you're talking about the religious organizations well that


making is it take five jewish or muslim butchers and what you're saying to them is if they choose to work under the corporate form which is viewed universe you have to give up on that


for religious reasons or whether we're willing to admit that there are some circumstances in which the employer is charged with that knowledge based on on what the employer observes no your honor i think there are some circumstances which it is certainly more likely


the corporate form certainly is with regard to liability determinations in fact this is a point that professor brewer meyer makes at length in her brief where she says that it is anomalous for a state on one hand to respect the corporate form as to liability determinations but


that these provisions are in fact the modern day statutory version of civil aiding and abetting the federal circuit has always recognized it and aiding and abetting at common law require absolutely


filed is the defendant looks at the claim that it has a method that is violating this patent and it may seek legal counsel and what it found in this case and what it would


that money is coming from the state the state is doing it as pay agent or the person with disabilities who is truly the employer i thought the state took the position that these individuals are state employees for one purpose only collective


to to have a majority of the people in the work force say we'd like to be represented we'd like to have somebody in the room representing us as a result they not only have a substance substantially increased the wages but they have paid health care they have paid training


then you have two things that happened the other members of the other people in the workforce have to pay more to support the process or the union doesn't have the resources needed to be a adequate partner with the state in producing the outcome that the state has chosen to try to seek


child pornography is suddenly going to have their sentence go but you're argument is that it is just a coincidence that congress came up with this list of three terms that are redundant and that just


language if you're asking me honestly like what do i think congress intended i believe that they intended brought to enforce duties or liabilities created under under the act to mean the three narrow categories of


which is the debtor or the equivalent so i don't see how we get very far saying that the trustees services an entity that no one thinks the trustee would keep the money and again six of one half a dozen of the other


specific requirement for that but not for the case we hear so justice kennedy that prevention of three forty eight three forty eight after deals with the situation that justice pryor was referring to which is what if the debtor during the life of the chapter thirteen


says i can't say the husband's right ok so we don't know now your idea is to send the child back to the husband unless the child gets up there and chooses between parents that's pretty tough


earth the schneider act which i think is now the indian health improvement that and the transfer act but i'm also understanding i believe and


understanding i think from what you're saying that the canon is something one exception the ordinary meaning in other words sometimes you'll look at a phrase or word since the ordinary meaning in sex


of people who say there are native american in the lower forty eight who are not members of types that's not an uncommon thing that this court has always said tried to find their membership and then the federal recognition establishes the trust


relationship between the united states and aid of person is established when that native person and roles in a tribe and i took you to be saying that the united states doesn't have any kind of trust obligation to a native person who is on unrolled and


in where the burden of proof is the burden of proof is on those challenging state law and if they cannot establish that the principle or predominant purpose of this law was impermissible then they lose and so here the fourth circuit refused to


get to finish it congress is preserve the dual regulation of nuclear powered electricity generation this is from two twelve to eleven to twelve coal and the federal government maintains complete control of the safety and nuclear


life or health so that you would have to have an express provision giving the attorney in fact authorization to consent to various procedures that


if arbitration were a condition of admission but in this case because it wasn't the condition of admission it didn't apply that rationale i think i guess the distinction here seems to me the decisions about health that we're talking about operations


that he's already here was twenty five million and how much was spent that was awarded by the court alone restitution was it ten or fifteen eleven million dollars was the amount of restitution that was remaining


an awful lot of exactly what's worrying me about the nerves that you know we can think of the hosts or walter raleigh is in the star chamber you know i mean you know the government's position is was


i can tell the court from someone who does practice that not everyone ever acceded to be e holding and i think if you look at what actually happened in the twenty eleven act it seems to me that


we can't get we can't get rid of this issue i mean we tried in stone knight in then in for co it's a sort of keeps coming up and i would have thought when you have well i mean is are for code decision law or could the principles by which


unincorporated defendants where they reside and that's what this cross cutting all purpose definition was intended to do but for the i think it's important to note that an argue for three hundred b does do work it


cite you a page of legislative history for example but i think you may well have wanted to continue having a rule that for example requires all defendants to reside in the district of venue which is what fourteen hundred b now now provides whereas the general venue provision


that paper cited on page fifty two indicates that sixty eight percent of small and medium sized businesses will get venue relief if t c heartland wins this case thank you also faces submitted


the foundation of the expectation of privacy is the right to exclude others in jones and rake as i said that and it's very clear that both under common sense if you can exclude and under common law we have a right to possess and exclude that mr


prove its initial burden under the rules reason by showing either higher prices or restricted up their flip sides of the same coin and that respect and i still think that the discourse of vertical restraint vertical restraint case i think justice


analysis thank you counsel


price fixing three people who are competitors agreed that they will have a convention where they will hire mr smith who will lecture to them about the benefit of all charging the same price i would have thought you just said


competitive one needs to determine if excess profits are being extracted monopoly rents are being extracted and the plaintiffs here didn't even prove what our costs were let alone our margins amy if this if the standard that this court articulate your honor


exactly what happened here with respect to the merchant fees because they were fueling price decreases to the consumers everywhere ward every seat on a plane to aruba every ticket to a billy joel concert every cash back


to if he doesn't want to so he just has to send so there's an automatic revocation so if you want to read designate the spouse to send in a change of beneficiary form so that is the insurance company know that there's been a divorce so that they receive the letter and sort


smith has an agreement with the mortgage company it says where there is foreclosure the mortgage company has to do a b and c retroactively the legislature


impair contractual rights group to it asli where there is an alternative that works equally well at a minimum the state has to do that much and even under the court's modern cases the court has said repeatedly that the contract causes more than just rational


that because it says illegally prick you're right it talks about material misrepresentations in two separate clauses correct and if you're if your honor wanted to take eight that the most natural kind of textual reading you would say ok here in


internally but in sarbanes oxley congress is focused intently on internal reporting and especially internal reporting of voyeurs and auditors so under my friends reading dodd frank would leave those critical groups or groups of this court in los inverses f m


you think a distinction can be drawn between the two in other words if you if we rule against you will the government come back the next time and say we lose now or will you have a good argument to make i am sure we would not lose or hopefully not


chance of winning this trial is eroding near zero close to zero and you will have served an extra at least an extra nine to eleven months because you'll be in jail for nine to eleven months


have individualized facts not subjective facts but individualized facts that must then be looked at objectively and let's think about hill and what happened there and hill you had attorney who gave affirmative miss advice to his counsel about parole conditions and that was


well you're on i think you are you proposing a test where you just find one thing that test but i'm proposing suggesting that that is the consequence of our saying that the test is purely subjective we can't decide that this defendant would have


engaged in servicing automobiles service advisors are plainly sales people and what they sell and what they are primarily engaged in is the servicing of automobiles thus respondents and the nation's one hundred thousand service


try to strip engines and play with the parts and adjust parts and you know it was very much more part of the repair process than somebody who was taking things off the shelf just asking and i know there's an


primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles now i take it that the parts men don't sell the automobiles so they must be in either because selling or servicing is just sort of a catch all that gets everything that the dealership basically does or it's


and other accessories like that there's lube technicians there body people who work on painting on upholstery on body repairs there's car jockeys there's a dispatchers who allocate the work so there's


of states it requires that there be some accountability checkpoints some procedural protections that safeguard states from the kind of arbitrary decision making that could occur and through an informal process where there is no public


thank you mr just as you start with the brock meyer question do you agree with the government on the issue that the treaty only permits those serially authorize and then you are at the series position that the texas court has already


that the the that ambiguity is my responsibility because authorized can mean empower or it can mean permit and in this situation permit is what the brock meyer case reads it as it's what the united states just is correct and


provides is the right as the court put it there to be tried in a particular way and so in some circumstances like the ass case itself that is functionally going to bar the second trial but in other cases like to win a case there will be the opportunity for the government to go


yeager by the way it was the government who went to the defendant and said consent to or agree to the separate trials so my understanding is that during pretrial proceedings the government or inside the state the commonwealth


of virginia interpreting a state judicial rule to have this severance package it wouldn't be a stretch to think that if that necessarily takes away the tunnels right to try to defend it for all of the charges that they have brought forward that the state supreme court could revisit that judicial interpretation


that's all they started trying both together and now it's separate that it ends up to separate trials and what i think i'm having trouble grasping is why you should treat that any differently and now your argument


two separate trials you should have said at that point that these might be the same offense and actually i want to have one trial the court said if there is a right in the background under the double jeopardy clause it is the defendants to invoke and for that reason i think that the same logic would apply


that the secretary may release an alien described in paragraph one only if it is for witness protection and it's fun just bitter here that the witness protection exception does not apply and that this categorically prohibits the released on bond of anybody who is an


congress wanted and god during that same timeframe as the ninety six act is described in the senate report one of four forty eight pages fifteen to sixteen and automated fingerprint system so congress when it was writing section twelve twenty


prior time frame or present participle referring to the present this court encountered a very similar set of words in robinson versus shell oil where it was trying to decide whether title seven which were habits an employer from a retaliating against its


you are the government the united states what do you think about that well your honor i think that the core of this issue goes to and i'm reading from the agency prefer the agency fee provision itself the cost of the collective bargaining process and that's separate from the grievance


workplace to under twenty of them gets together without the formal collective bargaining that a union does that that's not a matter of public concern very much so your honor because one individual employee is negotiating with his employer over his particular wage


think mr general by the way how many times this term already have you flipped positions from prior administration your honor i bliss may be more than your honor i think that we have revised that position in


general murphy as i understood it him make made a point that said well still i mean there's this under these following sections and suppose he's right but in the context of this whole


give the these seas of his sids and it did and if anything that goes to the states failure to prove recklessness and a reasonable doubt i mean the state has to prove that there's some notice something that gives a notice that it's unsafe for him to


that they want to make us prove something that is just beyond our abilities in a conscious our mr erin i need to reserve some time for my colleagues i think i'll set aside and let her address the other issue


there was nothing restricting the village from conducting their own hearing if and when a firefighter williams apply for pacy to see the benefits with the village they could have made that the terminate as to whether or not that individual's catastrophic we entered


counsel's word for it which i felt as if i couldn't do and on top of everything else when i looked at the record that i had it was very clear to me because that this is a defined benefit plan and that it is clearly cannot be contributions alone it's just you know that's just


is an abuse of discretion by the circuit court in deciding that the value is even less than the opponent to suggest a value well i believe it's not an abuse


and i would assert that the things said in closing argument were proper comments on the evidence this was related to the that the motive to testify falsely the other thing i remember this case is not only did they not object at trial and again they've


the thirteen thousand dollars that she paid to the other contractor covered the work that she expected to have been covered and i'm asking this as an explicit question to


to be complacence these codes exist in some car portal form and take the form of some regulation i we need to treat them simply as an issue as a


takes over the owner's duties to comply with safety codes and there is i don't think there's even any dispute about that everybody agreed that the architect had what force the safety was and they did not hear because because even their own people if


you as the plane just experts said these are the building codes these apply to this project based specifically did not say that that you know protect reach the standard of care as a matter fact one of the arguments in the defendant's brief is


hurt i called nine one one and what is the defendant do between the accident and the time he took off ninety seconds to two minutes takes off down the street and drives down the sidewalk the


us really need to establish was that it was a voluntary statement which you i would agree that the statute doesn't have a limit but i would say that the general rules of evidence still


say with an unfair advantage second of all


or all right that's the verdict but let's go let's go to the financial evidence of her issue and it seems to me that you are lying and case law that says that you know certainly unnecessary surgery may constitute medical


to address yes i did but again i think a fair reading of the record the way that judge lynn responded is and again looking to people be walker their good defendant you know defense counsel


effect and then finally in closing arguments i mean and the closing argument was focused on mr robinson's intent he was there there was an incident that occurred it was whether mr robinson was had the intent to kill or not and that's why the state discussed the


him that provides an explanation for why there was no opening argument again and again this is a jury trial and mr robinson's testimony was a critical part of the at the jury asked to review it which i would say also indicates that evidence was closely balanced on


case why your got justice is there has not been a reported decision that emphasizes the importance of reimbursement provisions since the johnson case in one thousand nine hundred eighty two johnson


the extent that as a kid he'll of putting things together a blow might all that was was measured there in terms of the true threat and they found that to be a true threat and i'm looking when you look at this when you look at the surrounding circumstances which


don't think his conviction should be reversed i don't think he's satisfied as applied but he can you see as applied proof kind of arguments that that that's throughout history to affect the facial striking the set


claims newspaper articles and things of that nature and i argue that this enough to pass the first stage under just the claim is all claims are arguable neither are fantastic more delusional all have a basis in the law and a basis in the


i guess i've been waiting in vain both this morning and also throughout the course of this edition i've been waiting to hear an explanation from the defendants about what on


it please the court my name is kelly dudley and i represent the homeowners in this case this case is about honoring an agreement the homeowners who are the plaintiffs in this case and the defendant a developer planning to construct a


housing and things like that so we do have in our society private individuals who get out and talk to people and tell them about their rights mr brewer seems to be one of those


of all there's really no evidence of prejudice defendant did he have ample opportunity to cross examine and in fact he did everything that he would have been able to do if he had known about the statement defended i guess limited wait a minute


about other crimes that might have been intended by this pair that came over there i don't think so i don't think you could you can fairly say that with fact that before of the attempted murder was committed defendant was found not guilty ok


where the vehicle was so we know how cell phone records in that location a vehicle where it third party in this case the information being that bennett was there before and after the shitty then the exchange of phone calls so it's not merely


record is filled with examples of arguments both in the people's opening closing argument and rebuttal do you get the impression that the defendant is the least has a point with


hold down a guy you suspect of being a burglar is that mitigating in any way no because this is not holding somebody down holding down the context of this well you know depending on i mean that i'm not is suggesting


it's no more or less than the one thousand dollars revenue requirement we don't agree with that it's at least the one thousand dollars revenue requirement and any dish the customers you get go up and beyond the one thousand dollars revenue requirement i see your point shaking your head but that's


cannot stand to see how old he put a burden and a logical burden on a witness detective the state has to have a rested the complainant for bribery as a


could not have happened by twenties it could not have happened after that there wasn't either it would have been too morally would have been too late and there was no way that that could have happened five twenty seven which is the time that she didn't even read it didn't give and finally


the very nature of the crime not encourage people to kill victims no i don't i mean we could go in there should be guaranteed in this in the drug store and just take the money granted that you know i think in the we're certainly not consider


share other characteristics here that there were no characteristics other than their race that these for sure they different marital status different jobs they all said that they could be fair and apply the law the state didn't try to challenge any of them or cause


thirty packets but we don't have other drug paraphernalia you know like pipes or needles or whatever and then we enter in which the drugs are packaged and we do have again i think that's on both of those you can use the packaging and of course these aren't meant to be


would would give them more weight than anything else from a from a lay person with respect to a couple of specific points of mr brown's testimony specifically with respect to his testimony regarding the


requests for particular orders regarding advents that that the onus is decidedly on the proponent of the evidence to make the record and i think that it does it does everyone both the parties in the


sophisticated real estate bad doesn't see the red flag anywhere be it is this what you want us to believe i do want you to believe that your honor and all that when we're looking at the trial judge's findings can


financial and you know he's coming back in many areas so enforcement of this ordinance well have to rely more and more on the private lives against acting as private attorney general


occasion issue has a scene acquiring land for and i find that kind of interesting that you are now telling all financial advisors throughout the country that they're suffering they may


affidavit although there is some confusion about exactly where they were physically in relationship to each other indicates that he shot mr brown as well because he was a


remember he brings mom back into the into the bedroom and shows her what he's done says you're going to be next and then at some point his mask comes off at that point and she recognizes him is speedy and she knows


she seen him she knows where he lives you know the general area is the description he doesn't fact have a speedy tattoo so i think there's two different times where the mask was up or off or at least that his face was visible i don't


ed in issues of the case which is ineffective assistance of counsel argument i would like to briefly discuss some of the ovens the case because that's the contest and after address that argument your honour's just as background as you know there's no statement by the defendant


under these facts before this court there wasn't a possibility of second degree murder even though yes the technically the jury should have been instructed on it still the evidence here that the same facts here


thousand dollars to try to get an exception and fail or to do nothing violate it and possibly go to prison don't sound like important legal consequences that flow from


when i read as a division what am i supposed to say ok so the decision tree starts as you as you recognize with one zero one five two the definitions as puerto rico is not a state for purposes of determining who may be a debtor under chapter nine that sends us to chapter one to one zero


issue about you know a brady violation is he would cues from sitting on that brady violation case if if the decision he's made was only about some procedural matter that had no substantive relationship to the crime


you should recuse yourself when and then with if there's a question that involves a substantial integrity or substantial question involving the integrity of the office and so on that's an added in the fact that


hundred in the joint appendix i'm sorry at page two hundred two in the joint appendix you'll see the petitioner made exactly this argument he said indeed due process requires emphasis in the original requires that the full court decide due process based recusal


you don't seem to be terribly troubled by convictions anyway but so he says i'm not going to seek review of that but then lead iran one seventeen prosecution comes along to see just sort of stuck with the fired allegedly deficient prosecution because


with you don't necessarily know that the first strike was that that big a deal which only when it's humiliated with the others that it is well that's absolutely the case but i think is this court has recognized in a number of decisions in nichols and in daniels although the


stakes might be higher when that spend and commits additional criminal conduct and although that might mean that he's exposed to those more severe penalties that there's nothing unfair in that process and as well there's nothing to suggest that those more severe penalties are being imposed for


appeals courts of appeals have concluded now if the court denies retroactivity here what it would be saying what is if the three justices and skilling had their way and instead the court had concluded that there is no


basis for finding aka applicable and that is i think as you correctly point out just a sort of my or very different from a procedural rule that would say you have to give the defendant twenty days notice before the defendant litigates this or the


category rather like the versity and the answer is if it's a foreign country and sovereignty is that issue do it as soon as you can in an ordinary case but if you have something special maybe you can't judge you run your own trial but


merits of the claim the court had no occasion to consider whether bellevue hood applied and as i mentioned earlier there is no similar dispute here in this case because there's not really any dispute about the fact that the parent owns


act in the one nine hundred twenty s it's an argument that was made to this court in belleview hood in the one nine hundred forty s it's the same argument justice ginsburg that's been made in the whole steel cold line of cases and consistently the court has recognized that jurisdiction is vital


governor made his announcement the director who was my client here in fact put up on her website the twenty seventeen application and twenty seventeen instructions in which she'd largely tracked the twenty sixteen and


but you gave the crossing guard example yeah i knew that it was very that look ok so universal of course that's my problem i can reproduce programs in the state that seem absolutely necessary for police protection fire protection health of children and


engage in further deliberations that conspicuously did not take place here notwithstanding the fact that both the district court and respondents counsel acknowledged that a verdict of zero dollars would be invalid after discharge there actually


cases and respondent and the government's briefs they will be hard pressed to identify any case that actually fits that pattern where a district court is being told it just requires telling a jury to go back and reach an entirely different sort but with regard to the policy


willingness to take a lobbyist telephone call or to meet with a lobbyist is not an official act so i think that the idea is your honor i understand justice by the influence itself doesn't totally solve the problem but what district court judges do that then you then explain to the jury what


encourage them to do it yes if they had proved that he had tried to encourage them to do that that would have been officially an official act our argument is that first the jury was never properly instructed on that question and second he never did in fact urge university researchers


citizens who do not pay will have to make his case before you i think that is official action petitioner says it's an artificial action unless he further sends the message which i think on the facts of this case was sent he's trying to influence the


stable in any given year there may have been a one to two clinic variance following the enactment of h b two more than twenty clinics closed within a very short period of time the timing of the closures would loan i'm sorry


approximately twelve your honor direct because if if you go through this no we're not talking about a huge number of facilities i really don't understand why you could not have put in evidence about each


but why do you say that scamp well your honor i think well we have to get back to the fact that this though my bigger question is what why do all the disclosure forms we have to fill out they have a lot of relatives you have to put like your minor


to favored friends family members and acquaintances who could all use it in trading without the knowledge of the public or the investors on the other side of the trade this would be deleterious to the integrity of the securities markets it would injure


hypothesised would not be covered under your interpretation it would not be a personal benefit now it might give rise to liability on and the part of the tip be if there was an understanding between the


fall within the historical definition of officers the special special deputy sheriff i think is the most analogous example and there's plenty of cases that have treated them as as officers but you tell me what the definition is


is that is hired them so i really don't see the difference between those two situations but even to push the point a little bit further supposed to stay created a special seal special


when this court and congress considered adopting rule six zero six b all those arguments were the same then all those arguments were made in tanner and made in war and what congress and this court decided and the vast majority of states decided was that the strict version


who may be trying the similar case all the time questioned jurors after after the fact after the verdict you know to see how to improve their arguments etc in civil cases and criminal cases is this a problem generally and that


looks i think of what the court was doing in the volunteer cases race was the particular issue that it confronted there but it was indicating and it's indicated in other cases you have to conduct the kind of wad year that's reasonably calculated to detect the biases that may be present in


certification with not a single motion yet on the merits and that's the difficulty of a situation like this to the judicial system not just to the cost of appellate courts are being forced to weigh in on potentially very difficult and complex classification issues that would


congress to make it one of the interlocutory orders that is immediately appealable like a preliminary injunction certainly but then the the plaintiff would have been risking nothing in other words to go so far as to say you have an appeal of right


difficult test where they were doing evidentiary hearings in the district court and then reviewing it on appeal the interlocutory posture the core problem with the death knell doctrine was that it was unworkable of course that


drop out those default judgments which as mr smith indicated are situations where the fee motion is effectively unopposed where i think the defendant often looks very unreasonable by not having shown up to defend the case and where the fee amount is quite small by


circumstances to invents considerations of compensation and turn loose the reasonable fact no reasonable position is one among forces there could be others well why not stop right there


there's another example of another reason though that's very grounded in the copyright act itself and that is the history of the copyright act and the ratification that congress engaged in in one nine hundred seventy six when it chose to readopt essentially the same language from the one thousand and one copyright act


value don't you figure out the value of that on the market through a buyer not the loss to the seller because if the next work that has to be the rule begins with paying for the parking lot and the burden is on the landowner to show that


common sense there's some kinds of property land is one of them that can create that joint that doesn't exist when separate the most extreme example issues no one would pay very much for just the right you are left but they pay a fair amount for the two shoes


us what you're doing what you're doing your honor if you're trying to determine the economic impact there's no question state law defines what you own but the question of whether it's a taking it's a question of federal constitutional law and the economic impact inquiry has to see to what extent


focused specifically on the economic impact prong of the equation and this is the economic impact on these particular owners or on some category of hypothetical owners it's always been an individual ised inquiry focused on these


shall have jurisdiction all of that way of free all of those freeze and indicate what happens when a requirement isn't satisfied but there's no such language with respect to this requirement i mean it's a mandatory requirement but


parties to the case agree yes this is the standard of review we agree it's well settled but the facts apply in different ways isn't that the factual part of the mix question and therefore shouldn't those determinations be


when told that he has to give notification of his change of address says oh if i decide i'm moving out of the country i don't have to tell everyone anybody that that is actually contrary to a common sense reading of this provision and we know that the notice reinforces the idea that he does have to


jurisdiction of he is terminating his residence employment for school attendance in the jurisdiction that's true in the domestic context and then if you if you go on to page twenty four it articulate the same requirement in the context of needing to keep the


which you know is they might be and so it seems to me that what we're being asked to decide if the possibility that they might be is enough to allow the government to we litigate the substantive the substantive


along no your honor because i think and i think it's very important to look at what what the board is actually saying here and what the veterans for saying this but there was a it was too general in nature and it was not specific to factual in that mental treatise would have to


the means through the identification structure and through the chinese that they provide that would open they provide the codes that you really the fourth step dozens of the third


that the commission has to confine itself to the four corners the federal register notice against this use and that they have to consider all subject matter with respect to which commerce is made an affirmative


basing the guess anon dump products where is the sense of this what what this is a statute that precludes dumping not protects against


software in the chips the server chips in that case and that those things had to be done before the step of processing could be done and this court held that the step of processing was performed even though it was on the used


instance and that definition of eligible it's colonel cameron duty well i would disagree your honor i think the the regular season failed to fit the well there's a regulations are scuse me the letter


that you have is that it's b s cause right and there's no separate and separate regulation or the like so and i understand the dispute clause dispute clause sad when the contracting officer


because it relies on three actual exhausting cases new york shipbuilding c j lang and sells her a new valid none of these cases finds exhaustion before the second portion of the administrative remedy is satisfied


inconsistent testimony regarding written licenses for the patent issues and today today there's been no explanation as to how this inconsistent testimony resulted in additional fees being incurred by our k i


all understand what the your l is and if you look in the county you can see that based on the way it operates it doesn't there's no need to retain the euro will serve their argument as well it must retain your elbow but it's easy to see that in my opinion that


binding contract to settle a major piece of patent litigation was entered by the parties or whether the parties agreed to draft in good faith that settlement agreement in the days ahead on its face gigi's position is that


we're not trying to challenge like the party did in previous the patentability issues one two one two three one to one twelve we're not trying to challenge the p t o s decision making when it gets into the area of agency


o s decisions in that regard and in particular i'm addressing ex parte reexamination interp are just reviewing post grant review the latter of which are found in the new ai act more over when congress spoke with


the court is adjourned until tomorrow morning at ten o'clock am


see good morning my name is geoffrey c lo i'm with the law firm of mayor brown l l c i'm here today with my colleagues in the increase burg on behalf of well been corporation and i will be doing our


four the department of commerce substantial deference to interpret the scope of its anti dumping or provided commerce is interpretation in its scope ruling is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence which it is in this


systems language would be


imports in for use as structural members in a scaffold and then later convert them into a natural gas by the well established


into the language mr back rick says that the product the king brings in can't be sold for use in piping systems although it in fact is manufactured for use


never ever question that this kind of that the court has jurisdiction to handle the the question of whether the debt exists there's never any question about the jurisdiction over that the question was when the court


to conclude that the clear and convincing evidence standard does not apply where did this a court say that


yang who is a member of the bar in good standing of the high state of california and also the district of columbia i have knowledge based on personal contact and collaboration of the


well number one that's only if you check your account balance daily it's possible some people don't check their balances for more than nine months going to one and number two that's assuming the bank didn't send notice or that the irises not say to the bank please don't notify the taxpayer get that would be misconduct


war on patent infringement is much more complicated than that and as this case i think exemplifies it in the extreme so i don't think that there was an issue of finality


on the question if i could on the same point do you think that our review in an ordinary infringement action where we are the first court to review the district court which is need this


sign it right now back to have already decided it and decided it adversely in its back before but it's being treated as a new claim it is not a new claim it is part and parcel of this claim what they are adjudicating is the new


to make change that inherent problems maybe unexpected result in iran or something predictable if that were in the clan the board you know might have said that we think the word you know accurately noted and what's in the claim


we could have done this for i mean this is this is serious this is a serious policy do we want people to blow the whistle are we not want that do we want them to take the risk besides career was set back years by this he has recovered now six or seven years later but


addition to the instruction that we believe should have been given based on gotcha we've also argued that there was an instruction that was given that was inappropriate was confusing misstated the law that's the third issue in my


no note the court did not address whether those defendants would spend the rest of their life in prison regardless of the minimum sounds so what we have is a case that has come up since the mandatory add ons and since the mandatory consecutive sentences i believe in two thousand


thank you mr doing in our final case the day's burn versus black and decker


the little bit it has a plane or surface a different see if i told that this way it has a plane or surface to it's defined by the flat edge and now it's got a plane or surface this is different from that plane or surface


but is phrased in favor of a grant papers corpus but if it's clear that the plaintiff's not going to be able to stage a claim the court has to deny that order and dismissed petition you know where section one hundred six says award relief


is an arbitration agreement does the parties agree to have the arbitrator decide the question of arbiter really we think he should stop there but if you were to go and we think the district court heard it in that or law below by confusing the or her ability which you just look to what


irreparable harm to the consenting to an argument concerning the merits let me ask you this question hypothetically change the facts of this case a little bit so that suppose that when the parties submitted the report of their


decided on the on the anticipation side but the obviousness side is there it's completely there as well to include your honors i guess we don't use common sense in doing anticipation


statute so the real dispute here is about the consequences of this noncompliance doesn't noncompliance of this post arrest procedure provision of indiana statute warrant the massive remedy of suppression


sovereign state of illinois is no better than an individual in that regard we said we would follow the law and the legislature in academic forty some station joined it and the large clear we won't follow me


a breakdown in the way that the deal would they should statured operates turn it around well you've told us why it's not such a bad world if it comes out your way suppose it comes out the other way in the sanctity of the review period of the of such and period is


well except i mean i guess the question we have i have with respect to remain on is does that do away with the determination and on during that after all is what this case was about in the first instance i mean another alternative would obviously


quite in whether or not there were two separate proceeding in the board intended to reach that final selection process in the board found that there was not there was one they were the virtual sanitation


of the invention of what was new it was covered by the means plus function algorithm that i'm sorry the means plus function claim there is no algorithm because nothing comes to mind to a person of ordinary skill me


of algorithms because the undisputed testimony is that persons of ordinary skill in the art knew how to retrieve information from a database long before this pattern was filed and this court's prior decisions have repeatedly sanctioned


initial decision is the decision of the board in the absence of any obstacle to the a j's decision is and is that when you think you are well i think what are you saying in light of what you


names or the procedures used most of don he said he did the testing for rockley and so in this case it applies but generally it applies across the board it seems to me the first question this court has to answer is the question of whether it we're not talking about


extend into that area and so what is the government's view so your honor i've been asked the government's you know a couple things i want to be very clear the question of what is our position is the position articulated by justice scalia the question of what we need to win it's


a you know what that that one anything else out there i mean tell me what the the realm of regulatory programs is that we ought to be concerned about if we were to say something like the production of some thing at the


that this program does not benefit all the producer yet we believe that we believe that this program actually makes the producers demonstrably worse off the only people who benefit from this program are the recipients of the


operations accordingly so that well let's just stick with the non drought operations ok assume my standard how do you win under the non drought here i think we have to show that it is a likelihood of at


operations we put in evidence substantial evidence about how the corps has released many discretionary releases of water at the woodruff dam even a drop drought up aeration is going back decades and it also gets to this question of how would the corps


needs to reach that because texas is complaint is going forward this court has denied new mexico's motion to dismiss what the difference how can we say yes you have the right to intervene even though you don't have the right to bring your own suit initially the


government being allowed to participate in that litigation well and the united states for many years litigating these cases has dissipated in these suits despite strong federal interest without being a party in a certain claims under the


here for the it states to raise a claim under a compact which which provides it no explicit protections if you if you allow them to you if you allow the united states to read that implicit right then i think you're opening up a dangerous


do you think the state could sue the united states under this compact if the united states started acting in a way that was inconsistent with its terms just saying yes i do i do believe so i believe that that a state has


the ministry of process could you answer my question on whether you see any impediment if we rule against you in this case to the department saying something like you've got to give at least a year i


that's really what i meant was is what's a court to do with a contract that says that i think i think we would apply that same analysis of asking has there been a reasonable opportunity for full and fair review and has the claimant been deprived of of the opportunity to set


of course you get to the second part of the analysis and you probably would insist on a conscientious objector actually objecting but i think it's important to distinguish between a no let's stop there ok to the extent


services the whole point of this provision the whole point of it was to ensure that people who got health insurance would get the preventive services as part of their regular care from their regular doctor that's


rules the government has has leeway where third parties widespread administrative you see so i'm i'm i'm trying to get the thinking of the people who have thought about this which are you and


that i don't think i don't think and here's what i would say about that i mean i i know your opinion and opinion of a few other justices have suggested we should shift to feel preemption i think if the court were to say what we've been doing all along is feel preemption and it


makes more sense doctrinally to classify it that way from the department of labor's perspective that would be fine i'd think we would be a little bit concerned if the court signaled to lower courts in its opinion that it was marking a big shift in its jurisprudence that could destabilize the law


insurer to process claims because although it may look on the surface as as though these reporting requirements and data collection seems very complicated it's complicated not because of anything vermont has done it's because there is a


based on probable cause arising from facts completely unrelated to the stop that type of intervening circumstance matches up precisely with what this court found in johnson versus louisiana where the intervening circumstance there was a commitment this is a non sequitur


that it there because to stop or he could be a long term resident of that house and there's not too many houses that are involved in a long ongoing drug trafficking or drug sales to be a long term resident of that house would know about i mean this wasn't a pizza delivery man yeah it


state or federal the only reference to jurisdiction in that passage is to say that you don't get to go to any federal court or any state court but rather you have to choose


provision of law to see if that court is vested with jurisdiction i've done my clear to a study in there or the she's been able to identify my eight other statutes that use


you have a privately owned corporation like fannie mae you should be looking for a pretty clear indication from congress that they wanted to confer subject matter jurisdiction thank you counsel thank you


charter but the original charter language was written in the thirty's and forty's it was written at a time when we were connected with multiple other agencies we were part of the department of housing and urban development we


nor the underlying facts of the case that the virginia legislature endeavored to protect incumbents what mr janice said was quite specific he did not want to parrot its he did not want to draw them their houses out of their


rejected that idea in the in hayes itself i think there isn't a a cognize will interest among the voters among the candidates in just seeing that a a lawfully legislative district in plan is in acted otherwise i think every


marty cut back on shaw in miller as well and again i just i at least would feel on much more solid ground if the plaintiffs had been put to the test of saying show us they say this isn't about partisanship this is about race ok


contract we do it every single time under the regulations but those regulations never even come up you never like a contract an officer doesn't begin a procurement by turning to part eight hundred one thousand point seventy of the far there's a five thousand page document


head on and six forty four are it said that agencies may at their discretion do this but if suddenly the rule of two applies in every case then in every case a disappointed bitter can come in and say oh no you misapplied the rule of two you should have thought that


going into the f s s if the agency didn't think that that was the best approach and in fact whenever the procurement is over half a million dollars i believe the four requires the contracting officer to make an affirmative express


first impression here should we send this back and i don't think we should because the meaning of contract this is a straight up question of law and the reality is that the veterans were waiting for this law to be in force and written have already waited


ninety of the n l e a the nutrition labeling education act and it's express preemption provisions and justice kennedy are position is that if suit had been brought as a state law lawsuit it would be precisely preempted


instruction on the simple battery rather than the sexual offense of contact and so that the court reversed it because it said that it was a proper instruction i mean what were the facts what what did this person do that was


acknowledging that ruckus comedy would be sufficient when it is just one physical injury as opposed to offensive touching as i'm all is that right or not under the common law in about the mid eighteen


very different view than the one that all the courts of appeals that have considered well then they might i mean unfortunately i am in the position of having to decide it so i put the question to you and i'd say at first blush the simplicity


exclusively in homegrown marijuana if you if you had that opportunity how would you have shown it is that marijuana in question was well


mr worley had acknowledged selling marijuana one time about three or four years prior to this incident there was simply no showing in the evidence of this case that you even had a commercial


not inconsistent with mr strauss his position in this specific circumstance of an auction what we had here i guess i don't understand i mean to just take a hypothetical case where where maryland said to all its


what seagate said is what's the what's the best source for trying to come up with a sensible way of applying willfulness and they looked at safeco and they said you know the best way to do it is with a recklessness standard that's an objective determination and the fact that there may be


an individual flaw that he could make a lot of money by taking those cotton goods in the machinery that they were used in selling you know all over the united states and so he did it i think it was alexander


and what they want but the court would adopt the kind of rigorous objective standard that allows both for the both for the determination that the patent is invalid or doesn't infringe and that that's examined on an objective basis if the no further questions your honor i'm sorry the court


you get a warrant i'm not sure why you think you're left with nothing but your two things one we think maybe it was helpful for us because what the court the court was concerned about


unconstitutional conditions context where there's a bargain here in the court it's always a lot of states of them pose bargains to impose conditions on the use of the public roads in this manner for nearly one hundred years the court has allowed this is a this type of thing as a mechanism to impose conditions how long so it's really just the


two is creating this negative implication as to any product any single product as opposed to just saying f two is about specially made stuff and it has nothing to do with f one which is not about specially made stuff


what it said was ok to seventy one a is direct infringement to seventy one b and c or what we call secondary infringement it makes somebody liable even if they weren't infringing and because the combination


process you haven't received proper legal process that's been your correct it's been corrupted because so i thought if you never received it then doesn't your time to accrue


it may be that that's enough for a specific jurisdiction depending on what the underlying claim is exactly justice ginsburg the question here is can they go along on two hundred eighty million pills that have that bristol myers assault in california that


as well as mr meyer so i think it's not it's not clear agreed that the person jurisdiction is defended by defendant so there may be some cases in this maybe such a case in which there is not one place where any group of defendants can be joined together we think generally


well that's what the the board says that leader know that right is in it for the district court to make exactly that terminations well i think what the board said is that he doesn't have a mixed case and that has shaped what he's asking the courts to decide so he is not seeking


their right to seek review is in the federal circuit so i take the point that this is a rule that employees may have to handle on their own but the system helps them through that the whole point of the scheme generally and we've said this and it appears on the face of the statute is to make sure that the


have the maintenance of the plan done by a organization that was an employee benefits organization and nobody objected to that they said that's fine mr hopper and an object that nobody did that's fine if you want if that's a convenient way they would talk about how to run a plan not opening up the


they they did interpret it the way they did i wouldn't deny that they did that but there is they give no reason for doing that these were x letters every one of them up until the last couple of years was done on x party basis the competitors had no chance to


calls but also text messages and data connections including when a phone is in a pocket possibly in automatically checking for new e mails or social media messages or weather alerts and today the government is able to obtain historical sites


argument to the fact that there is some protection your honor we acknowledge fully that there is some protection a touch more than a traditional subpoena because a judge is involved but we think it is insufficient in the context of records


jones laid out an analysis of why there's a difference between using technology to make that trailing telling possible in every case as opposed to the very rare circumstance where it might happen but here it's even a step more removed here never could police have decided


with these other limited expect exceptions is illegal what what new jersey is decided not just that we want to repeal because if you repeal all the old you did make the argument below that there was no authorization because the statute


that i don't think they would have had a snowball's chance to say that that wasn't licensing or effectively operating but here what they're saying is there were no laws there's a law prohibiting all gambling we're


congress passed a long immigration statute which is this all over no one hundred forty three which lists about thirty or forty crimes and it says if the person has committed one of those good bye and the attorney general can't stop


being administered sure and they see some words over here in part one on page three thousand eight hundred sixty and they know but we wouldn't know that if you interpret it one way rather than another it's going to be much harder to do the thing so as a practical


when i see the word action i think of lawsuit traditionally and claim as the claims within the lawsuit and the walls often distinguish between actions and claims of securities laws do or routinely here why why should we follow the plain language


in a timely fashion but when those individual actions new actions are filed after three years is passed i would respectfully suggest that that fully implicates the policies behind statutes of repose generally and the text of the statute and then i do think that gives you a very


under the ineffective assistance of counsel defense so evidence arguments witnesses this case is only about and you say there's a small difference because that's what all the difference in the world sometimes so a piece of evidence is far more


and the idea is that lawyers know better sometimes than their clients and that we should want to lodge a great many strategic decisions in their hands rather than the clients but you're


objective i would describe it more as though he said i know a better way to cross this divide and we're going to cross it by letting me drive the car over the cliff because the car will then


outside of the ordinary course of business and the pursuit of that claim against the manufacturer of a widget that sold it to the debtor would not obviously implicate the safe harbor here there are no security well but there's


briefs is that it has the discretion to decide where the district court has the discretion to decide there's no legal requirement that this money be distributed the government has taken the position for instance that because discouragement is not compensatory victims don't even have standing to challenge how the


come into the law until much much there's a matter to cliff i understand looks like a four for sure but i don't we treat it like a forfeiture well as i say i would like to talk about your your tracing point but just to make the point just to be clear


that case actually involved the victims of nazi crimes so this is an extremely deeply rooted principle now that's not to say congress could not abrogate it of course congress could but the court said just last term and helmar it the case involving the


martinez and it doesn't matter for that as to whether the change was a day or ten years it just doesn't the questions whether there's a reasonable probability of a different outcome and there is the question of the fourth prong is whether that's the sort of error that's so green just we won't submit to the ordinary


considered your home as well and given the volume of activity in the state terms of the school plant where road goes through i forget the number of employees one isn't that fit in that additional


f is at home in the state of montana i think that is one factor that plays a role into it you don't have to worry about as you would in cases for example with you know foreign companies that are being dragged into court because their


and what proximately flows from that the problem with the latter theory that is the provocation theory as an excessive force matter is there are multiple problems the first is it imposes liability under plaintiff's


assist in the evaluation the preparation and the presentation of an effective defense for the defendant suppose when thought that and it's not your position i understand that it was ambiguous on this point


sides privately prepared i don't think that there was anything prohibiting the prosecution from talking to you would you object to the following disposition of the case we say the issue is not partisan bruce


point justice kagan is just that this question presented in this case which is about whether a neutral expert can satisfy that was not at issue an ache it was easy and in the defense here we're about this is you saying this the defendant should be entitled


was filed here for a psychiatric evaluation for mitigating circumstances the two motions both before trial and the for psychological evaluation after the penalty phase both were granted and that's dispositive just rasher one piece of evidence about what a holding it means is what the


there are many many many adjudicatory bodies in the executive branch and what the it mike is says is if you don't want to have jurisdiction by cirque de rectally from all of those rather


chairman it doesn't make much sense though does it i mean take this very case so your clients serviced the stat and counted as a debt collector at that time and then your client purchased the debt and


the reasonable attorney standard and a reasonable tourney representing a client of finite means as the standard that we think is appropriate and it's actually the way they interpreted the word necessary necessary is the word that appears in the c j and they interpret


prejudice and deficiency both prompts you and paul on that is not our case in our case the record for deficiency is fully developed and it will often be the case that the record on deficiency is fully developed in the motion


argument not that there really is a difference between these two verbal formulations justice league i'm going to ask your question i'd like to reserve the rest of my time for a little what the fifth circuit did in our case that it is not supposed to be able to deal with speculate about the record on prejudice


around it than to say the test is whether what would a reasonable attorney with finding means to do it seems to me quite meaningless well and that's right justice alito because we're nowhere close to agreed with that standard because we're in a hey vs contacts the reasonable necessity


why does article three insist that he have standing justice breyer i'm unaware of anyone who thinks that there are somehow a better lawyer than someone else who doesn't think that they would have a different take with respect to claims relief


on the constitutional question our view is that you could imagine i think everyone here agrees that there are some things the party iligan would do that don't require standing like presenting oral arguments filing briefs there are some things that do require standing like seeking damages filing a new


the judgment or for party had an in an actual interest in property that was going to be distributed by the court i think it's clear that both of those deaths of people would have had standing and so that's kind of the people that i think the rule drafters had in mind there certainly my readers probably


article three is really the same as the ultimate question underworld twenty four eighty two and under article three if you're asking whether a person can initiate a lawsuit or can appeal what you're asking is do they have a substantial enough interest in the outcome of this actual dispute and it's really the same inquiry under will twenty four eight to


standing our equitable ownership interest would be a sufficient one to be protected under rule twenty four it would be imperative if we were absent from this litigation and we ought in that situation to be allowed to intervene the second circuit assumed otherwise right it decided this case


summary denial of appeal from the lower courts reasoned post conviction opinion the federal court should look through the appellate siloed order to that last reasoned decision as this court does as all the circuits have


shows its feel to really between two fifty four the court says quote hundred twenty fifty four d he views court must determine what arguments were theories supported and so if there's a written opinion you can see what argue sort


the same thing to do neither could the state come in with a totally new argument that wasn't made to the state court at all and say you should deny


until about a year ago the state was well aware what the state process was in georgia the state process in georgia is the parties submit a proposed order from the state's order in this case is the talk of number eighteen that's one of the record and then


time a time from january first two thousand and three until january first of two thousand and four when during most of this time over nine months of it the defendant in this case was fourteen years old and isn't that charging the year


and they said that they could receive no more of a sentence than they would have resends if they were sentenced as a juvenile in that case and that was actually the state versus fresh in the hand and supreme court of my piano in two thousand and twelve


hearing in order to get into criminal courts separate statute there was no issue regard to transfer to criminal court there they are you did that case procedurally whether or not he received everything he should've got in juvenile court before it


his so called misrepresentation and in the letter he says first off he said he said i'm exercising damage control that's what he said he said the he said


go far enough time although she said it was hard to believe i think were her words and her decision there when colette filed for divorce in i believe it was november of two thousand and eight they


i think that's what you know i don't recall everything laggard in the brief i pretty much want to rely on what i did say in my pre but i think that this case is different because of all of the stuff that was in the record


say about it here or we have this the p c saying here's what's going to happen well if the again if the i suppose if the parties had done nothing receive this letter and done absolutely nothing


find that it in fact was not a binding opinion and therefore under brown has no legal a fact at all that is a context in which we're saying there's no resolute there's no resolution here within the meaning of the act certainly nothing you


says he does not it's not clear to me the very difficult decision the very least and he said clearly that you have to have severe pain this is pain you don't miss it has to be covered by severe pain there's not one shred of evidence of any severe pain that this patient head was closely watched and monitored based


on that day that she felt what she testified to at her deposition was that she had to do so because there was a canopy that it couldn't have gotten wet but that's pure speculation on her part we've shown that she had no basis for saying


what they need to review this matter then the court can determine that they don't get any additional discovery and this court of judge gonzales his particular matter felt he had what he needed to be able to evaluate this case given the factors that are outlined in johnson and also


admonishments must be provided at the time of waiver it's also this argument is also just contrary to the purpose of the rule which is to allow the defendant to consider the ramifications of his decision and certainly mr boswell cannot be expected to have


wall but when you look at dr nicholas in his reports came out sequentially and over the course of time he does acknowledge that some of the surgeries are warranted but he gets to a point where he says this individual is as good as she's going to get and


made a couple remarks with respect to the video and act like it was a century enamelling in all the video is trying to do is demonstrate that this lady's capable of work and it did so and you obviously no one when the court


clothing at a distance of at least when when when a when a medical examiner testifies that there's no evidence that the person was shot within close range firing means there's no evidence they were shot closer than eighteen to twenty four inches that


you say that that means that there's not enough evidence i'm the child's killer right yes i would say it's math it's like what i said before about the sun rising in the west if it's closer to seventy two or the less than seventy two and she says you should give your range but the range is in the


have and subsection easy which we do allow for other nominees and charges and therefore anything that you can list out is another and not and he's been charged could be considered under section he it would be separated out as you said before the parking the food


method or a platform for speech it was also the speech itself and what i mean when i say that is it was a platform for speech because within the occupation within the holding of physical public space that around the space for the traditional first amendment


eleven they've decided we're going to call these traders to pursue this element of damages and i think it actually goes beyond the pain and suffering element that attends a physical injury and they're literally caught claiming something that can be either


lithium toxicity may also play a role her own opinion is acknowledging it's a combination where the it's on her report and i have seven sixty four comma seven sixty seven so that's didn't within


back in two thousand and ten what on direct appeal and vacated the underlying felony murder convictions the fact is that direct appeal counsel didn't do what smith tells us to do which is a disaster argument that the bill really remedy for lack of a better word that mr


life sentence number one member to judge but i did not find that the murder was accompanied by brylin heinous behavior the illinois supreme court in addressing an identical argument said we will not accept the state's invitation to engage in our own assessment of the facts and


had no jeopardy attached he had no repercussions it ever attests to him he went to a lawyer found out you know i can say based basically anything i want i can go in there and they can't do anything to me is that correct but my question is is all these counties with was a


arising from this carl coleman the call that appeared in the minnesota law review which frankly i have difficulty understanding but at least i think there is not a case now but it's some sort of


think it's been working and there is there is no sense this the way you think it's been working is that the board has been giving notice to parents were on student records are requested and giving them an opportunity


illinois boy unwarranted invasion of privacy issue and then it agonized about whether maybe one student or two could be a dentist fired it did that analysis for porpoise for purposes of the illinois for it but it didn't do it for purposes of the


simply firing a gun might be a different offense and start that might be reckless discharge that could be aggravated assault these these offenses while it didn't require that specific mental state of a specific intent to kill then still require the court to find that he aimed in the


person coverage for terri and so with the other provision that says that they will not terminate terminate it until sixty five you read that in combination with that so that the that the benefits that don't


know there was at there was evidence here of an equally plausible and likely alternative explanation for those finger marks on her arms week she had testified that when


the but this court and the owner supreme court has cautioned against that you present that evidence to the jury and let them decide what they think this was worth and i would contend that it's certainly doesn't shock the conscious or indicate anything other than their


actually ran once he was out of the train station and were smoking cigarettes with it to testify at trial that at the time the defendant saw the pack of cigarettes in his backpack and asked for one and the victim testified that he was trying to


placement of the language embryos are understood to be your property with rights of survivorship also under that sub part immediately afterward some part eight says quote in the event of divorce or dissolution of the


signed in march of two thousand and ten again no one asked to change it and to say that something you learned four years later gives you the right to argue something that you didn't know and didn't express at the time i think is is now crapper the


the purpose of creating a contract that set forth the party's wishes with respect to the preamble is again not worth western's wishes but the parties wishes missed decide a neutral third party witness testified jacob told her she should be able to use the pre embryo so if the parties were to split and he wanted to


liquor license approvals this is a case where the the the money at stake is village money it's not a license it's it's it's there it's their treasury and to have them be the ones who


are final orders and more importantly when you're trying to make a decision as a as a poet or to look at the record here find out whether or not the court below had done the right thing you don't have a transcript you don't


statement was discussed didn't thought it recognized there could be prejudice from the statement but said we can live with that it is what it is we think opening statements are not evidence and we want to go to the verdict so when the


if the defense lawyer at the time of trial knows that the judge and the prosecutor are wrong about the ten years and that the statute actually calls for reporting for life is this something that a defense lawyer would have a duty


movement is extremely restricted so yes but that is apparently preferable to being at rochelle so let me be me see if i can direct you your argument a little bit because i would again want to use your term internal contradiction and


under these circumstances we say the answer is yes the case law that already exists has established that when there's a miracle settlement agreements are clearly going to both child has


at the transcript of proceedings and the state has agreed with us on this point that it was a by agreement date and december sixteenth two thousand and ten we are speaking about the same date so our position would be and i don't have the record in front of me yet


by which allowed for the defendants time to toil for any other causes of delay that could be attributable to the defendant in this situation in two thousand the legislature specifically added section one or three deaths


very loud speaker because that there are no other cases showing this is ok because nobody questions the fact that one you can ask somebody to make a will in your favor and you can get it done and you can brag that you got it done later and


partners did much work in order to earn that development fee and that it was standard in the industry what did she base it on on mr harkins testimony that burnham partners actually located the land where this


was stated on february twenty three that was their testimony that mr naylor told the plaintiff to turn all your clients over to miss corke and i believe if you don't like it you can leave your honor that's not in the commission's report that's not in the


damages of a state law claim there is no there is no free floating preemption of state peanut of damages that could be invoked so i think that this if you agree with us about the federal law cause of action then the state cause


that have been designated as such based on a rational or several congressional statutes that permit that does ignition and then i mean executive determination about their sponsorship of terrorism there really aren't any constitutional issues in this case as you think


upset settled expectations doesn't impose new damages doesn't impose a disability to use just the stories terminology and in the in the with respect to compensatory damages


and therefore basically transition its action from the prior version which is fifteen our sixty six dollars you know five a seven to the new federal cause of action so it's a transition it says nothing about punitive damages


colloquy with mr geyser and that is that if we know one thing from the history of the act it is that congress thought that the collection of debts and the enforcement of security interests were distinct concepts and we know that not just because of the


the broad language of the first sentence must of thought that enforcement of security interests should be distinct from that collection i think that's right let me point to one more textual to that hopefully will be helpful to the court in that regard when the when


viewed as a collection that whatever conflicts have worked out there have also been that have happened there have also get down oh absolutely which is why they did it's very easy to accommodate these interests and again


ground for going into it or not depends on the case and what why would it be any different here where in fact it's not even a court and you have a law which says you don't even have to use court rules of


sharply honed which i guess covers justice alito as mars attack and various others that are unusual but cry out ok now what about


is fired then you have a much better idea the basis for the discrimination and it's sexual orientation it's not sex but in a case like the two cases before this court where the employer had hired these men and they were already there


i'm sorry i can they never be just this just this judge lived below said that almost sobek stereotypes are unrelated to sexual orientation the


well maybe now it's your answer to this question but i'm still you know because we are all always very vigilant not to read things into the constitution they can't be found in the tax time waiting for the answer to


sued the commonwealth of massachusetts in nevada state court steve when the casino operator and he sought and on friday evening obtained an injunction from in nevada state judge in joining


extreme degree that it generates the specificity so it's somewhat in congress for me to think that you're


first we did not specifically direct the navy to do all that you don't think i want the other side may say the opposite and there we look through the record briefly i'm not an expert there but i think we only have to did seem to maybe there's some evidence on their side there and


court this is a failure to warn cases under section three eighty eight of the second were statement that's where the principle is embodied in that says that it's something that ought to be controversial and that is if you make a product and the ordinary use or maintenance of


in which the the underlying conduct of the grab the men of the plaintiffs complain it involves activity that touches concerns us soil with sufficient force to displace the presumption against after territoriality and so i think this court


still have the same force now mr burdick there is one part of the cheese question you didn't answer the government speaking with one voice when you said the government should but he's posited to big difference here the government the executive has said this was


place superfund sites contain extremely hazardous substances lead mercury plutonium to name a few excavation transportation and disposal of these substances is risky


the very plan that atlanta great field would violate federal law so this is a that only a challenge and not only its direct remedial action that has to be taken in violation of one hundred and twenty two dollars but it's the only claim that would meet our standard of conflict preemption


for example you can understand that the e p a looking at this might say ok we're going to this school to do this could this it we're going to get to that issues we're done doing this other stuff and yet someone else in your position would come in and say we're not doing anything here and so we're going to go ahead and do this when the


in washington if they want to dig out part of their backyard to put in a sandbox for their grandchildren are you saying also is going to go out you could say dig out part of their backyard e p a would say if you want to disturb arsenic infected land


plea agreement that mr garza decided to change his mind to have his cake and eat it too or to game the system or however you want to phrase it doesn't have to so it's not understand the


phrase then they added the exceptions later they also left in seven references to time lost in personal injury and two so we know that congress continued to think that time lost payments were covered now comes one thousand nine hundred three and congress


material by this in the jail there is sort of detailed guidance on allocation from the r r b but i think if there is no allocation the presumption is it's going to be treated as time last i think there are be says nonetheless the employer and the


sentence is based on the guidelines but absent circumstances like those ordinarily a sentence will be based on the guidelines and that only makes sense this court has said over and over and over post booker


court might do but i think that a slightly different hypothetical points out the difficulty with this mr chief justice if you imagine instead of a case that comes right back up to a nearly identically constituted court on the exact same


there is objective evidence that it was a pretext for example when you had the judge six years later trying going through the statute books to try to find a statute that


why congress would have wanted these units almost alone among potential plaintiffs not to be able to sue under the any trust laws but took to be more specific section fourteen ninety eight authorizes suits against the united states for


the president i think it's instructive today the creek nation does not have a presidential or secretarial proveable requirement but many tribes in this country do including the omaha tribe that was the subject of parker the cheyenne river tribe that was a


would say justice kavanagh that something can be on sale regardless of how widely it is in fact sold so for instance if you put something in the shop window and no one in fact wants to buy it and no one in fact bison it can still


court had previously held the on sale bar to be applicable to sales to distribution intermediaries then we might say this is a fairly old leak where you have overturning those decisions are key point is this is always that right


it lots of proposals to change it they all fail and then a couple statements said on the floor on which you're relying on i think the legislative history read as a whole because exactly contrary well to answer that let me


offers and offers are important for two important reflect uki reasons one and offer shows that the willingness to place the invention on sale to make an offer to sell the product shows that the inventor is ready to commercialize the invention


therefore appellate nephew the same is true of the military which is a separate world and it is article one giving them power over the military that lets them do that yet the same is not true of the n l r b which is


protection what that means is if their military officers they are insulated from removal by good cause which of course takes them out of the chain of command now rather than suggest that that is a constitutional constraint on the president as commander in chief the government argues


examiner and the appeals counsel thought you didn't word entitle to why a will that's not a tyranny question that's a purposive consequential right and basic


and i think even there you've had difficult questions that have come up under this bloodsworth rule about how far does it extend into these other processes like the medicare process medicare part a part b part c part d all of these massive


or deceptive devices or contrivances and just those misrepresentations alone i mean if if some of your arguments were correct if you took them to their logical extent you would have to say that misrepresentations and omissions don't fall within that language of ten


make clear that janice was self consciously a decision only about ten b five b the i think it was the second question in the oral argument in that case from justice sotomayor was why isn't there a claim a scheme claim in this case and petitioners response was not that it's clients would have been


the act is the sending of the e mail and the the conduct that occurred here with gregory runs i was the actual maker of the statement so frankly renzo is essentially a conduit he somebody that's transmitting statements you know would


particular which they focus on what does that mean and what does that do sure as this court made clear and cream of paint that language limits a court's role in ruling on a petition to compel arbitration to reviewing the making and the performance of the agreement


polls are not open while they're not working places like cleveland have very very very long lines of of voter red voters trying to


postcard saying if in fact you just decided you didn't want to vote for twenty years but you really want to keep your name on the list and you're still in the district send this back i would be illegal we're talking about the people who don't send it back which by the way is


return the notice have moved because they have never claimed it was evidence that they have moved their only claim in this case is that we are we are we are targeting these people because there might be surveys about how many people throw everything in the wastebasket i confess to doing that


the petition and then to deal with the merits issue at a later date certainly if there was really no issue that should have gone forward it's possible judge brosnahan had a right to step then but not in not under these facts and not in a situation when nothing had really changed since should


that if this had been disclosed it would strongly bolster the defense's theory of the case that doris is not your typical written a story says not a disinterested bystander who happened to see a crime and turn to the police and say i think i


that provides leverage for her to get a deal i think the facts of the case and the facts of joyce's character lends a lot of credence to the possibility that the state did not want to have their star witness as a prisoner and again it would


of the normal degenerative process we recognize that but in this case the fusion surgery was medically necessary before the accident it was medically necessary before she came to work for us there is no way in which


it's contradictory i think and other issues got there that well i think saying that this incident accelerated the need for surgery is contradictory it's contradictory because of surgery was r and b did it on august second two thousand and six and dr puffers


to keep the gun out of evidence keep the victim's identification documents out about parents the car keys that were found in the defendant's packet out out of evidence or how to suppress the victims in court and line up identifications of


the village has taken a number of inconsistent positions with respect to whether or not there was a step three answer depending on what form it spent but we don't need to get into whether there was a step three months or by virtue of the march thirty first letter because


built somewhat is around the eighty range now so it's not a question that that's all you have to have but i just want to make sure we understand that the bargaining unit is substantially larger than any


well i don't know i don't know i don't know if you need to i don't know if he needs to concede that he did make those statements but i'm not even sure that he did see that he made those statements it comes with presentation i think she's arguing back


and dr singh had stated that based on his exam the hyper exam as an excuse me hyper exaggeration of symptoms and symptom magnification as well as the physical therapy notes


so many instances where he completely failed to act as a true advocate whatsoever i one of those would be his failure to investigate this


review your honor from it i just like to make two points first i want to respond to just sort of point we just heard counsel say that liability approximate causation are in fact the center of what they're going to do and if you look at the elements of proximate causation they talk about whether the employee


mistake all those things and weighing the probative value it diminishes substantially the probative value of the evidence because there were other methods of proving the same thing additionally not only did john halley statement indicate that he


here basically think there was no clear unequivocal admission that yes i you know i pushed the guy in the water that's what i did it was no clear statement of that side that you're saying correct defendant's admission was


restriction a constitutional acceptable restriction that you could register thirty days before the primary as a candidate of either party in a border of either party cicero's area or back in the seven these which was the


testified that when this friend purportedly got out of a car which they were driving with their girlfriends and suddenly a cost of the complaints and their friends a group of fifteen to twenty other teenagers as they when hanging out on the corner minding their own business and they provided a pretty


we're the kind i was very probably talk about to your friend he may have talked about it in fifty i think he did say you did but even if he did it doesn't mean he was lying about it in fact the fact that there's well