interpretations and we think there's only one reasonable interpretations of the facts of this case the facts of this case are that mrs hoffman did not want to quit work that was her life blood she didn't make any choice she did not make a choice in effect webster's defines


what she is asking for now is under the severance policy and under the severance policy she's asking for the same thing that she's asking for under the disability insurance which is which is benefits because she is unable to perform the occupations of her or her job


all foreseeable misuse of a machine there yeah well yes you're on i think it's the where forseeable misuse comes into play is that a manufacturer generally has a duty to design a product to be safe for its


and gauging the sexual harassment


begin but if it was possible that some injuries fell outside of the prior publication exclusion would that be enough to trigger all the differences judy to defend no because if they're the same that began earlier than that would not and it wouldn't


setting aside the evidentiary in your briefs you argued even after they pointed out the other exhibits you came back in your reply and still said the district court only relied on exhibit one which seems like a false statement in your brief it was quite troubling so i i mean now you're jumping to a different argument you could have argued that's not the look and


that yes if the nature of the claim is one about a deception or a misrepresentation and that's actually spelled out very clearly in the banana republic versus veera decision that they brought to you in their twenty j letter and it


said that just like the junk decision from the california supreme court which says just because you can't bring a u i p a claim as an unlawful pronk claim you still can bring it for all other sorts of reasons you can bring it because it's unlawful


make sure i addressed before i sat down was my opponent said the district court may have been confused as to whether his credibility finding on dr brockett really influenced his entire finding about dr brackett it surely did this is a page fifty three of the same


court may think that there was another permissible view and for that reason we think that the judgment should be affirmed thank you very much


so can you speak to why we should consider your market participants yes because this is like boston harbor it's a huge business enterprise a proprietary department of the city of los angeles as alleged in


you know banning lockouts but of course that would and would operate as two people that the union asking for the labor peace agreement doesn't represent at the moment they are represented by other people or by nobody other times unions have


cards i didn't hear the last question because i was looking at the last question is whether the omissions of your client could lead to fee how liability because omissions or other acts that touched on california or could happen in california are enough to give liability he


anyone else who engaged in econ that remotely similar to this or even anybody who ever violate anyone's constitutional rights under any circumstances whatsoever well those are there was no discovery but we're


she did not report it but she was not the person who made the hiring decision she was in the hiring chain it only makes sense to people down the chain in reviewing will make a recommendation as to whether somebody should be hired or not but you can't characterize


eleven he treated this is a reverse confusion case and applied reverse confusing doctrine the judge was shocked when she had the case on summary judgment in the actions that that are under review right now the orders under review right now she spoke of reverse


means two factors descriptive in this and use other than as a trademark she may not get a pulitzer prize for her writing it jumps around a little bit but i think it's clear from the district court


child on the street determination issue which we really haven't touched on there's anything in the where there's kind of a compare and contrast let's look at the current placement let's look at curry and


petition on behalf of the petitioner that if the district court below had adopted and analyzed this case using the callee analysis that very basic four step analysis which reflects the modern approach to the review of military


would not have a significant impact will that it would have a significant impact and that it would change respondents relationship with the child is then a proper consideration


liability as potential is understood in case law concerning coverage and there would be virtually no case that wouldn't meet that standard that's virtually no standard at all instead of her duty to defend is admitted wrong but it's not so broad


and so i understand the court cannot reach this nd issue unless it is unable to grant really based on the st issue under the principle of constitutional avoidance this is determining the limits of a constitutional right and in young the court said well that


drugs in mcquire what we can do is put defendants in the best position to seek that treatment so simply locking them away for greater and greater increments of time might not necessarily do the trick and goes against the legislature's


as i wanted to make sure that this court was aware of this was a new kind of drive by analysis of defendants history this was a long and final process by the judge explaining why he thought this particular defendant would continue to use drugs we continue to use


truthfulness of the medical chart is fed up held so much over the last few years that our illinois rules of evidence have that doctor and the fact that these records could be admitted as due course in court without even laying a foundation through a witness


diagnosed and committed because of a substance abuse disorder and then had been denied release because although he had been given some treatment he hadn't been he had been denied release because he had untreated substance abuse issues these and the circuit court


consistent with a number of innocent scenarios and then the officers observation is a mere hunch i would see that furtive movements would arise from a situation like the one that this court encountered


that there was the tape was too dark that they didn't have i think they referred to it i can't remember the name of the device but some type of device that would confirm it right what about that i


again providing the same distribution to each family that they that both mr schorr in mrs sure expressed intent to others including their children


don't believe my client would have any argument in that case that something was hiromi asli just the the erroneous action comes from this decision to completely exclude him


they were promoted over somebody else or grievances fucked up but that grievance comes out the other way it's going to impact somebody else that's exactly what happened here close to file this grievance board says he has a right to file


heller's analysis should apply which is that you know you do it historical and traditional analysis and you determine whether it's consonant with the history of the right to keep and bear arms and if the answer is no it's unconstitutional without any scrutiny analysis


and needs to purchase the firearm in order to possess it those are connecticut hawaii iowa maryland michigan the brask new jersey north carolina rhode island massachusetts


you should rule in favor have plans for the following reasons so that you see when mr case is to what extent can a township board arbitrarily modify a road district budget submitted by a highway commissioner


urgent response that he had to attend to and we have examples of those kinds of cases from gaffney to beginning with gaffney where we have a firefighter dealing with a live fire and real


to the person that called in which was cheap dinkins or someone reporting to be cheap jenkins she believed it through the testimony that it was an emergency and she testified in


that responsibility my judgment and also gave mr wilson fees based on that issue but at that point mr wilson had entered by the court a new garnishment


is should be disregarded the evidence here i believe was overwhelming sure each witness may have had been subject to attack but the overall


in two thousand and fifteen then that the case could go back to another arbitration with a different arbitrator what happened was that after the college brought the error to arbitrator greco detention arbitrator


to talk about why it's so important that evidence of limited admissibility as to possible intent to deliver be subject to a limiting instruction and i'd like to come back to argument one and talk about the crime that actually resulted what was proven and why it's


would he still have the discretion to deviate upward because he was giving her credit for trying to start or are making an effort to have a business that would succeed that would protect


positions we're going to testify live at trial i think is almost nonexistent clearly our rules provide for evidence depositions of physicians i think the case law certainly both


testimony was consistent with all of the credible medical records not not such that it was and thus the commission's finding but not such that it was the credibility but that it was consistent ultimately


the history that he provided to dr williams think that for what it's worth dr williams takes a verbal history when he performs in a pet medical examination the portion where that reference is in his report is in the verbal history section which he got directly from mr


within the definition of farm in section one dish sixty which is property used solely for growing and harvesting the crux including but not limited to great now the defendants are trying to get


as opposed to the practitioner equivalent of following the elephants in the parade namely you're stuck with what's happened to you trying to do the best you can with it but it's not a sympathetic position isn't


and that one of the ones will heal i think he indicated in months or a year was crib three asked whether the condition was causally related to or in washington chemicals in did


judge adrian in this case dismissed the petition and i am i'm fairly certain i don't have documents pacifically in front of me but i pointed out that harris left open the door


outs i mean how to say i agree with the decision in many courts do agree with the situation but i thought don't think it was limited or women even other eighteen or nineteen year olds claims to say if you were the actual shooter


in russell b s n f a the illinois supreme court addressed this issue head on holding that if the defendant's contacts with the form states are related to the operative facts of the


saying whether or not it's fair and reasonable to ask this wisconsin company to be held into court here and i think if we framed the inquiry correctly the question is is it fair to require it


when our closing argument is that the the future was referring to the realty the relationship the two of them had and specifically referring to what is evident both mr smith changing her story about what she said at the


weeks her entry was made within a couple of hours of the time the jury verdict was entered which means that the three weeks prior she was talking to somebody by your own admission


in the very st paragraph of the whole it identifies the language of the settlement agreement which is completely dissimilar for the language in this settlement agreement says that the retirement benefits were to be


we just don't know what questions to a defense counsel would have asked because he never made any offer to the court you just abandon the line of questioning and don't let me ask you about the other point ms can made in that is


large office you would think he would have some facts to suggest that he didn't get a bonus payment that everyone else received and yet he hasn't alleged it so the court was correct to dismiss


you seem to be saying there's some distinction because it's the local i believe that's true please or something about the injury or that there's nothing about that that it is there's nothing about


for for the employer so there are other places you don't have a problem he's jockeying trailers to the central location and that's that's what i have a problem with because he was injured at that location


testimony was very clear on several occasions he had no knowledge of a claim of national alliance and arguably i don't know that the analysis before this court needs to go any farther because


that they were not these were nevertheless not sufficient because the court was concerned that about cherry picking and further evidence saying that the court made a credit only use that term to i'm trying to find out what that meat is i believe that means that


place and the argument that once the officer returned was the ickle with my client's driver's license and if and i you can see right the ticket that that was the end of that that should have been the completion of this


there is there has to be enough reasonable suspicion and the court simply found that there wasn't enough reasonable suspicion in this case and made those credibility determinations


is whether st whether the deceit and lack the capacity to know the natural objects of his bounty it is not our contention that this case is one where john did or didn't know his family the rd is whether he lacked the ability to dispose of his property with a plan in


think that that is when we consider measure it up against the other things that he may have gotten right but as soon as you have to look to other facts to argue this fact away i think you're doing the jury's job which


selected informed without considering the rigid structure issue and on that point as the court noted the district court made no finding about intrinsic evidence that would support the definition of


client station connections that's referred to in the specification as the o s s i interface claimed differentiation tells us then that's not a limitation of claim want this argument was never made to


period performance in the context of the past quarter such as this is that had one completion date for the entire scope of the work so period performance in the context of this


how does that affect the lack of corroboration as to his use of it as a dietary self and having it in his possession doesn't seem to me to get you anything or not get you everything you want one


not have the same interest as mr cornelius but she definitely has some interest in this case they are saying they didn't put enough evidence in the record to create a question of fact that she is either adverse to them or disinterested that the record evidence as it stands can


commercial product on the market just because we had to rely upon the specific samples they gave us and that's what f e m a tried to do they saw the broad license they gave a very minute samples of one end of that license we stipulated that those products of that variant of that license in


pressman combination so i think for reviewing secondary considerations you would still need to take the closest prior art into account started all oh no no income nation is firewalled five hundred four is an integrated document so would have some


will be adjusted to take into account what the patient is doing for itself and you're saying we don't do that our machine gives the same contribution


litigation now in pending at the court of international trade have there been over time i don't see in the decades since antidumping and countervailing duty law was enacted has there been a regular stream


separated with a ten percent disability rating when you look at the medical consultants report he says that decision was in here and that he recommends that the thirty percent as recommended by the physical evaluation four


notwithstanding that other things might not be appealable a constitutional claim is going to be allowed unless there is some extra additional exception provided by how do you respond to that well your honor i think i


mentioned every indication in this congressional scheme is that denials of institution are treated to be treated categorically as a grant what if what if


the theory of which disappointed petitioners would be filing directly in the court in the st place is that it would be in aid of its future jurisdiction this is the same theory on which you know when


context but this is something that the office is or should be concerned about i'm not sure what the what the concern in front of the


could have very easily put in front a final be a decision in there but they did not just as just as they had in subsection any and the fact that they did not do that courts have used that as an


not it is not there so that's a missing piece that creates question or ambiguity or is something that the district court had to wrestle with to try to making certain assumptions


about i guess in the axle excess of one case we're arguing that assumption about sixteen days and in the other case we're talking we're arguing about eight days we're arguing


a later october two thousand and two meeting in which they all alternately discuss this issue this issue they claim as the truck or noted represents an impasse and let in the negotiations a point in which the contractor must decide


razors and then overnight the janitorial people go by and make sure that they're all working the temperature the weather supposed to be and so forth that could be considered those activities are activities involving direct material


one in fact you have ninety two and that's a thirty percent difference the mistake the district court made here was it added the difference in percentages as if they were absolute numbers and said well the difference for the blue eyed people is two point one percentage


made in column five has the packet format or adding one all of these extra pieces of data before it is spreading transmitted and they were not part of the preamble right so this is so primal nothing said without the stuff it's all


opposing would not understand the functionality of those circuits there expert what i had a field day no such evidence again it's mere attorney argument finally the invention birth respected claims one in sixty five through seventy ad the display


adopt the government's fallback argument the government argues that even if you agree with our position on the statue of limitations that the amount is not a tax and that somehow triple canopy has done something


it would result in with the contracting officer and the department justice having to make decisions on the same issues it would certainly defeat the government's ability to engage in negotiations or settlement


are correct in any of the three constructions that we would have to affirm yes you have to show that all three were wrong yes pretty well there is a common thread


with all this priority for them would not have assumed that the eight fourteen beta was a harmless or potentially harmless byproduct the teachings in the prior art show that in fact under conditions of treatment with acid the a fourteen


did in fact identify that specification shows a figure of eight alpha but then he went on through the remainder of the declaration to speak of the two isomers together in the second baldwin declaration dr baldwin and anyone identified the


it may not be critical for the outcome but it's it's the devil to me if you look at figure five you have this piece which is thirty with an edge thirty four which


through an equitable fraud and it wasn't moot because some common issues of an equitable conduct restore law and the counter crimes and the decision to destroy her decision doesn't become a nonevent district court decisions are presumed invalid unless and until the fine


revoke arbitration in his art under that agreement optimus facing a jury trial in a matter of weeks and promptly no delay promptly brings to the court's attention this license and release


in the middle of discovery as we read from the magistrate's opinion she's about to grant a motion to require them to actually answer a number the questions they have to be answered when that's right and when and how they dismissed the case is not an issue in this right but but but your honest question was


that position if you're going to rule against us you first got to give us a trial i think it is i think it's improper for them to suggest that we need to have multiple opportunities here there was a hearing that the magistrate judge conducted they had every opportunity it


this what if we were to affirm wouldn't practical effect of this patent be it's totally dead as to all comers forever i think it would be very difficult as a tactical and practical matter to enforce it it is not


well if that's true look at what was happening to us commander in the period of the commission's current investigation u s demand was dropping again during this period so are you that the increase was due to exchange rates or their view that it was due to demand either


said that there was on that they would export to the united states of that's enough because that will displace some share of the u s market that is not on the commission made the finding the commission made in this


are our position is that they never


because if they impose penalties in ninety eight and then we pay the piper if we were reliable and then we could continue to commit the violation then they could penalize us again and that's in their their mitigation guidelines where


face and under the customs regulations they are published in the federal register but they they are what they are they are facing as as if the court read some carefully their very case specific they must be read in the context and this


and the way that you supply that context best in these circumstances is by drawing all the way back to the signing of the contract with those contemporary stocking that's eighty three eighty four eighty five and discerning the


congress has set that limitation upon had that limitation on the books for the v a cannot pay benefits earlier the


with two different numbering i think that's the clue to the right way of considering the pattern because i think that we're in clause makes no sense in the context of playing twenty three in the context of playing twenty


or optimize it you have reached a local mountain peak you have got the best jack you can it and given all of the factors that go into one of these chaps and therefore any movement away from the i'm not saying it's the best in the universe it's not the


which was above the contract price you recover the lost value of the week you don't have to show but if you've made the weekend of bread you would have made a profit it's ridiculous but there that may be the case here of wheat but with the cost


where as the court knows the trial were not a contract and one of the three but not on the other two so the issue that was debated throughout two thousand and four was how do we adjust the damages models to account for the


comma from the word interest all the way up to the word title for any period so it's trying to i think you need to read the words within that clause in the context of the for any period


place and she's homeless and then she calls the c f s and says i have no way of taking care of these children so her sister was annoyed by that time and they had to stick


made that i am it was the divorce on grounds and that's how we have don't want i guess so to speak


it would be timely if it's final but that apparently is not your well this is the case these are to cases are fairly interesting because there are there are internet there are cases


a secondary position in the event the court does not find the regulation in conflict with the statute but there it does in fact if you would take the regulation at face value and put aside how


said that he didn't think that the proper collapse just like the plague here said she didn't think that this piece was going to break because of the question is not whether or not that would collapse but whether reasonable person went into dissipate the danger of walking on the bats


the sort of issue you raise and effectiveness of trial counsel the only other affidavit you get in this particular instance would be counsel's affidavit and counsel is not going to be part of oh they are not going to be willing to


pietschmann so it would it would be impossible to believe that the state would not know all that and that left the defense and everything be schedule without ever telling


i would not have any particular desire on my part to be buying condo in florida or enjoying my life based on my heart what the intentions of the parties were


version of the events if you have something like this it's just a general framework testified to by someone that's not an expert and then they're supposed to go back and on their own apply you know try to find out if it applies to the case you're bolstering her


state has not attempted and is on able to distinguish weaver besides noting that it is thirty years old all other all i course have continued to cite weaver just since he the case the state relies on distinguished weaver and reaffirm the rule of weaver people versus


issue of defense counsel said exactly that i don't know i know i don't want to i don't want to talk about it anymore because it would only it would only bring it up and draw more attention to it i think this this court case and people versus lewis is very helpful on this point louison


the expert witness testimony was very persuasive that determination of the jury trial at the time based his expert opinion on whether the


until we found the dispatchers when this was three years ago i'm not sure exactly what happened with this call so they talk in generalities about hey look this review this would that say it was clear well yeah it probably would


cannot return to being an electrician you cannot handle weights that are involved cannot handle the physical demands it terms of zisha ning and maneuvering then that is the vast majority so here again we do acknowledge that he had a period of


know irregularity or incompleteness the point of holder in due course is that one must honestly pay for the instrument and not know that there's anything wrong with it and if that's the


of damage and it had no value other than to inflict day you know and damage on your opponent without anybody knowing that you possess the thing so if it was such a weapon that could be defined


to fear for his or her safety are we looking at what the perpetrator knows or are we looking at what the victim knows mutants the state i'm sorry you argue that she couldn't


have over three hundred forty equity positions it was time consuming process and was determined to see would not start the process until the consolidation was completed and that's because there was a difference in how the guardianship was going to charge it would be


to service master what they neglect to find is that when my clients were appointed co executors half of those rugs were never returned and service master went out of business down and in florida


it's i understand that the court can consider very specters in the cases that have been cited by both parties most of the cases have a lot of removal but the fact basis on each of those cases are different where either the custodial


have the hearing the first time i go to the child's life was the same the child will go to school a head start in texas will be with his grandmother he in this area in illinois


there was all sorts of other evidence saying he blacked out or whatever and but nevertheless the fact that there was that one little snippet i fell sleep that was in evidentiary admission which required reversal of summary


responsible i did the same thing like if somebody says i ran a red light that's admitting responsibility for the injury the second major issue because issue for


is an example had been had a value of twenty five thousand dollars and mr hardy took out six thousand dollars that would reduce the value for one day the people who for one k the employers i'm not going to


replicating the situation of this just gets and i've been terminated the second thing is that to adopt the city's interpretation which as i understand it that


moving is my client is here in illinois he doesn't have access to a lot of information there wasn't a whole lot of testimony other than what leo would report or said or he ability for my client really to cross examine that to a large extent as to what's going on in maine


drexel school a child who was throughout the day in school to say that just getting benefit yes he doesn't some indirect benefit but you know i would love to be a stay home dad i don't get it do that just just choose i mean that's a choice that lee has made yes it does benefit


mr harrison senior head under the partnership agreement that previous existence which was terminated by this difference client under that partnership agreement mr harrison sr had been the managing general or so it was all true


benefits were texans i mean that in two thousand and six just like in every year from the date of its creation how annoying to not provide anything to this trust for which you can ask to return it was texas not the state of illinois


that was conducted in illinois prior to the creation of this new and a second example might be somewhat more understanding to all of us and i'll use myself as an example


stipulated users it is if it's stipulated that is if it is used exclusively in that process now what i presented this to the trial court and my fault is for


illinois there are also rules and regulations under the on oil environmental pursuit protection act they talk about air pollution and they talk about animal waste and they talk about


b but in general and a very important point here is that there is a pollution liability policy country mutual issued to these insurers and that policy provides


that was never disclosed to me clear rule two thirteen violation rule two thirteen i do to supplement i had no idea that number one you can see in the testimony but number two that he was going to change his testimony to comport with


condominium i believe up in the chicago area the condominium association as here had a contract for flow and ice removal with i believe several companies however this contract according to the plans allegations did not


and that's what you look at what is a post wife relationship you know just that when you know i mentioned going to the store or going out to eat it's customary for husbands and wife to say honey if you got any money in your


close to de facto a marriage this is a dating relationship they join their own separate space they want to separate space they help out people as friends would do close


reasons or or something along those lines but he did testify that he gave the in essence discretion as to when to make that decision and that that was not some decision that he was making or that somebody who was not standing there


they select a place and a location that will be safe and will be reasonable to conduct this sort of stop and when you give it up in which the officer discretion is to say this is a safety concern as far as i'm concerned will


there are instances through the service corps where they just found out i'm going to hold you in contempt that's my say well maybe not but i'm going to say that you have sanctions imposed and they


who would have an interest that's recorded with a deed or something in the recorder's office not a very interesting real status recorded in the records office in the form of it


offense and so those are two different locations those two versions do contradict each other and if people versus journalists the same thing the alibi witness testimony it was two brothers and their testimony would have placed defendant at their house with them and the


court in ohio corrected what i need to correct an intern other order right yes that was later on but on the date that we are on the date that this was filed this summer the twentieth two thousand and twelve there was no


response then it's almost as if he is gaming the system to try to ensure that that's going to be up to might influence reasonably from the conduct of the defendant whether it's from something as opposed to ask


he's doing there is rely on the truthfulness of the defendant if i didn't feel so that is why is decision is inconsistent


contracted or participating provider they agreed to accept a lower amount this is also described right in the plan itself record page one eighty eight and so on the federal government wants the carrier to do this it wants to


different from the situation here the p l c or may be totally legitimate it's just that the underlying conduct here is what's problematic brit purpose exactly and the revenues the susi did with that in terms of the f


don't write my understanding your honor and i don't know where that number came from my understanding is that within the fifth circuit that the universe of cases is on the order of around one hundred i'm sorry this multi does


realize it's not a good deal for him necessarily but why is it unfair to him but i think what that's doing is almost reversing the burden on who it is that has to prove that this intimate occasion provision was fully and fairly


and i think the district court did a good job of pointing out she judge carl stewart's opinion i'm broke is that here in the person of the ne t that hyper and wanted to be a democrat from was us well and that is clear


approve that request in the manner required by twenty seven ten b and twenty seven ten he of our group and he did so pursue it to an express delegation of authority by congress as a supreme court observed in the city of


principly from its interpretation of a statute that it had mr even though it also interpreted a nother statute that was administered by a different agency and the same reasoning applies here the n i g c grounded its decision and i


here she asked you to disregard the testimony misc injury she asked you to take as true the defendant's own testimony she completely overlooks the testimony of more than half a dozen witnesses as to the


related to financially and personally the car no room for the ski trip and your honor that's what i was referring to mr ho did put that money down and some of it was paid back we could not conclusively show that none of it was paid


view of appeal put on a woman but then they didn't appeal to this court and they the way they brief the argument only you know competitors i'm not sure that they haven't waive that right before this court because i don't believe it's even addressed


set probably without having the knowledge myself with the help of the district courts and pending orders in pinning at the time and so it seems to me from looking at the breeze and the arguments that a fair


look at the objective data we've got these twelve and pick children and so this gets back to the question of the standard of review what it is clearly erroneous for this record to draw that conclusion with the objective data showing something


argument i understand you understand but now on that point you brief that as your first from the obligation was substantially likely to succeed but i think i'm right in stay motion you found the district court you cited a slightly softer standard which is a chael


ordered hiring more caseworkers if your representation is that the system now is had almost a billion dollars put into it well that the legislature to be clear was very generous in this last session and funded a number of specific initiatives funded


sex trafficking one less who has her own child destined to go into state custody when you balance the equities here of the state who has told the district judge we have a billion more dollars by relief by relief we did that in


findings seventy five percent and sixty five percent error rates in that sample went to the commissioner of the department but the commissioner and the department never told the advisory council the governing council for the for the f


the tax return a business license and quote any other evidence of the business activities any other evidence of the business activities necessary to determine the appropriate next code and the other evidence here


referenced there in that there are no oil and gas components in these calculations so i don't believe that it is i don't see any reason why under the settlement agreement or


those registrations they sent defendants to notices that their actions were in violation of their copyrights but then it still did not stop using them they filed a lawsuit alleging a willful infringement because defendants were now


it's a reckless and stand it doesn't have to be actual knowledge but if they disregard a known risk that their acts are violating our rights then we have established recklessness and n a s the remedy


the total amount of the rat it was the discounted value it was the capitalization of the risk that is a very standard way of coming up with these numbers and when you look at the actual numbers judge southwick


if there is acquittal if the way the case was instructed that the government had to prove all or nothing at approve aggravated robbery so so why was it reasonable for the defense to say well look maybe they won't get all the way there and then we walk completely free if the jury believed


nothing if there was no charge on robbery i would concede had there been a charge on robbery the jury asked to see the knife in the twenty minutes later came back with aggravated robbery there'd be no issues but without a charge on robbery their choice the jury's choice


it's i told you wrong if you testify you can be impeached with these priors assume in our hypothetical the defense lawyer go we'll ok calls ducks worth he gets up there expecting to testify for


technically but the jerries not required to close their eyes to the circumstances that would have involved the banks well if the government's theory the government's theory on appeal is that the per scheme was to live off the radar by


the government says j p morgan chase relied on the old and on the documents there is no evidence of that they concede in their brief that none of her misrepresentations went to j p morgan chase


clean man's position requires that's what the appeal panel decision here requires is that you're inserting a new requirement into the definition of start up business in thirty eight point one three seven and so our interpret is i'd agree with you


badly badly impacted in people did not come back and start moving in as i understand it so the community rebuilt for many years that that paid in your claim yes there's a reference in one of the footnotes to an article


quested use had nothing to do with production the production was the production it had nothing to do with the rig the well that the rig was all on the platform to drill was


being asked to sort of hold in place and you've got to keep all the things lubricated yes is the answer now it the way i mean i may actually understand the question it's not do we do nothing at all but are certain items not being used but


synopsis of what her testimony is she says this man followed me across the street he was within one to two feet of one to two feet is the link the note from my head you know that's two feet away from you the faster i was the closer he


determine whether or not there was probable cause in this particular case as this court as well familiar probable cause is a totality of the circumstances analysis and it's one that's viewed objective lee without the benefit of hindsight and so we think that there are


it's not targeted enough and it's not widespread enough to establish in marketing or advertising it's not widespread enough it's still a traditional basis and so i would i would say that because of that


where i mean it was it was a little bit more broad ranging than just that justice issue i mean there was discussion about the case in general and the allegation ringback so there is a record of that and that is where there was some discussion about the


the eastern district did i miss something on that in other words the dative nasco were the western district rules the same did they have the same six point three one two three four thing that we have i'm sure they're not the same because i know these are just rules of


ambiguity in the agreement and there is not what mr fenn found was this or testified to and which the court adopted was that this was a quote unquote production loan those words had never been used by the parties before he took the stand


if your counsel is in effect correct and so while i agree that the plea agreement does say the defendant agrees not to contest forfeiture the issue with that is what he actually knew and if


permanency through satisfactory placements they do need help and we do our very best to give them that help but the question is is our actions so arbitrary to satisfy that really tough stringent subsume due process standard and i


focus should be on the on the results not on particular numbers i'm thinking of by analogy cases that we have on prison medical care where the standard is also deliberate indifference standard


word hole and he testified that meant kilo i mean he didn't say where or how he knew that what that was based on maybe that was based on his general experiences training maybe that was based on that investigation we don't know he didn't explain the basis he just said that again that's just one more example and there's many more


because again it knew that it had this refund obligation to us insisted if there's a press release that was signed back in zero five that was released by virtue of data treasury's present where the most favored licensee provision is specifically


then statue of limitations the one year the subsequent really could not be revived the supreme court affirmed that and held that yes while prescription may be retroactive for those individual


the state legislature i mean in the in the motorcade case it's the cosmetologist he was supposed to be out doing doing the i can't room exactly what the work was but it was some type of


public defender but by other defendant's counsel is there any authority anywhere in the united states that the fact that they discover an error after sentencing prevents prevents


after that you don't see him banging anymore you don't see him doing anything before the cameras covered inside the jail cell so he's he's doing whatever he's doing but the noise and all that was what caused officer carson court not allowed to go into the cell they talked to him at that point


was no possibility of the city being able to be unable to grant a variance to this requirement was required by the ordinance as well so you're arguing that that the


give consent they can make arrangements with counterparts in other places so for example when he went to visit his son i think they would know where his son live they could make arrangements there when he went to the trial i think it was a las vegas but i may be wrong about


lawful counsel at the time appellants actually conceded that the policies outside of the two thousand and eight policy was lawful but what they had represented to the district court was that autozone and this is in


you can have multiple victims you can have just where we ended up you said yes you could but there was no fine i think there was an implicit find in this case that i think there was certainly a fine in this case that that that was the testimony that the court relied on


in plain language you're saying what it was we sometimes say when it's not plain the plain language is used in the context of on what carol is to the statutes have similar language yes they did you can't look at the language and make a distinction can


until at the very least and bank panel of this court has said that it doesn't should we ask and in my panel to take this up we do have the ability as a panel to in effect call a case and bank on our the three of


had is he did not have the knowledge that based upon the cards that he had these were gift cards and in the name implies it's a gift if you received a gift card you're not going to have knowledge of whether that card hasn't hasn't coded number that why do you go to seven different


site because you didn't have an action it's the at stake well right now you have an action at stake and you know the cultural site is in that one mile corridor you have some obligation to do more than simply say well it's better than it was before


different the one mile is for motorized right primary and that's why that's why so are there limitations within that one mile corridor with respect to cultural properties there is that there's the admonition that hunters are supposed to


district rangers will issue closure orders when soil conditions are too wet and that kind of damage is likely to occur one of the proposed yes right yes that's right other than that did your client


state court proceedings where he was facing zero to twenty two to ten years based out of the exact same transaction i think the court should conclude but if we disagree with you if we don't conclude the way you want to know your


it please the court my name is tom riddle simon i mean a usa in helena montana and i'd like to begin with a question i believe was raised by judge christian regarding why it was reasonable for


frankly be guessing i my surmise is that it's him because he's the person i had the longstanding relationship with the pennington family but there's nothing necessarily that says it had to have been an officer yeah i would just


not change this calculation we view younger copulation sorry yes we we view humphrey is related to the extraordinary circumstances exception to younger abstention that petitioner has invoked in this case


this because she was enduring she wanted to get revenge so that's i wouldn't characterize that as him finding that her that that was what her testimony was it's just summarizing the testimony that was before the court in the evidence i was before the court but some of the clobbering evidence introduced in


constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing in light of their lack of maturity in underdeveloped sense of responsibility their susceptibility to negative influences etc


that is one thing we prevailed on below before judge quote we are she in which she said that the language in the regulations means what it says exceptional students are not bound by the geographic women taishan and do not


uncontroverted testimony of oliver's father and his mother was that when they asked miss reedy who are the folks who are going to be working with him who who's who is going to


really got a problem my understanding is your argument is that there's some benefit to airing this in front of the public right also from one logistical answer to your problem to my problems a logistical problem would be to to not exclude all members of the public from the back


had was to invite members of the public into the back room sure it would have been more convenient if they if the judge wanted to keep the jurors in their seats to go next door to another court room i mean the


offenses happened a decade apart mr bowman was incarcerated for seven or eight of those hears so he really only had two years in which he could commit offenses like this again and he did


original offense is quite old the failure to register is an immediate problem and it's reasonably related to the assessment and is there an abuse of discretion with regard to that finding and i see i'm out of time so i may


has a right of reimbursement under y law mr o'dell recovered money and h m a agrees that mr o'dell through the unfortunate situation limited insurance and the horrific injuries his recovery did


remember the court would make that make that determination just what portion of the recovery duplicate what was paid or i mean what so how what has it different i'm just trying to understand how is it different for your client if we affirm the district court benefits


just a little trickier than anyone ever wants to it met unfortunately with a risk it becomes it can become complex or as we come back again this is simple we are not asking


of contractual or plan document that has nothing to do because under hawaii law it's plain and simple all insurance companies have a right of reimbursement factually it must be determined whether


the person is just the wrong person and he has no authority to do this to that for the purposes of the search and seizure as well as to whether the evidence is usable in this case the fourth amendment procedures are the protection


dealt with it as i was explaining shmuck states that there are other sovereign powers at issue here and that the that the power even though was it was predicated on power to exclude in ortiz bra's really really included other


mr nor caught in arizona we don't actually have reliable information we just have word on the street and then at some point this x part of this in camera review session happens there's no record of it and


admit to that at the very worst that wells fargo has a policy of requiring time records be submitted on a thursday i grant you that those can be submitted after the last day of the month


we think for these reasons in those set forth and in our brief that this court should therefore affirm the district court's order on the motion for summary judgment thank


o'rourke was over sixty five and then it extrapolates ed from the regulations that would apply if mr o'rourke was over sixty five to decide that because his work in the court's view as a union vice


say that medicaid it's a little bit unclear to me exactly what the requirements here are but they say that medicaid requires every child in foster care to get a health screening in the first year and the state wasn't doing that


presented at the time that they filed their motion that's the only evidence that judge silver had before before her when she ruled on this motion that's all that this court should be considering finally on commonality i'll just end with this that the glue that existed in parsons is simply not


nervousness or shaking it may not have been as dramatic as all that well mr brown's hands are not are not visible really the entire time on the video so there's no question no question one way or the other the video can't


jumped to the descriptions of implementation versus supply challenges and said we had to go to an as applied challenge to get an effective remedy that simply ignores the plain language of the statute further as applied challenges simply doesn't


isn't then the standard contract moch not compliant under purpose based on that admission a lot because the standard contract complies with the first regulations pursuant


as to make the trial prejudicial and that's my concern in general is that i see i see very strong cases in which the government then they had john gave evidence and i wonder whether or not that's really a wise thing to do


in some respects but the important point is this your honor when the judge asked jurors have you read the instructions that i sent home he doesn't ask enough first


legislative history and notes and the prospective effect of homeowners bill of rights this is that this if this law effects foreclosure actions that start on october first two thousand and thirteen and


separately the law is clear that when an employer post election continues to contest the results of the election or the processes of the election any so called bargaining during that


because the the board is taking the position it comes taking the position that any interaction that could constitute bargaining not bargaining for a first contract any isolated or piecemeal engagement with the union by any


voluntary and i won't go through those but i think what was clear was ms there was a clear effort on the part of the officers to overcome any resistance in the satterfield had to let in that she let him into her


as well as the exceptions or responsibility yes let me ask you a question so davis is well and good but the supreme court just granted cert in two cases hughes and coom correct i'm not


additional language to say there are circumstances here that justify the giving of of this additional language in the instruction that that's where i'm hung up because i don't see circumstances that trial counsel pointed to well the


what that opinion means but usually we wait until the case actually raises the issue before we give our opinion on it and the government has said the jury was not asked to decide the


juror number twenty three was as soon as she needed or i guess it was on monday morning was separated from the other jurors that's correct what happened was that the euro came in the morning


important reason is that there wasn't the kind of there's a suggestion there was a blockbuster information of reconsideration that there actually been that kind of information a third party said submitting an affidavit yes i did it or i was there something somebody directly could comment on the


and so might my point is and i think mr snyder does an excellent job of bringing this out in his cross examination you have a gentleman mr mahoney who sang he's a bipolar to let less


because in the district court's opinion the your expert did not rule out other causes for the body yes that is correct but isn't that


examiner and they did extensive cross examination between mark examiner and his qualifications and his methodology and as i said he showed the picture to the jury and identify each and every mark that he had used to determine that the weapon was a glock and us


and certainly it's her problem is that the record this is then but if hypothetically an employee is the victim of discrimination by a supervisor what is that person to do except request a different


be it can't be are not tangible but it can't be speculative and we've cited cases in our grief to that to that point and here i think there are too many layers of speculation if you hadn't terminated the statement of work of oceans i would have had a creator if i had a creator


well aware that i'm swimming upstream when i was first appointed to represent mr moran sco i could not understand initially how his actions constituted a crime there was no monetary scheme no financial gain or loss


violation of this will be referred or for criminal prosecution and so it seemed to me that because this was such a small piece of a small regulation the lack of notice existed


the courts making clear that the context here is prejudicial pretrial publicity and the possibility that jurors might have been exposed to it and then he says number two you will understand that now that you are involved in the jury selection process you are not supposed to be doing any


pick up the body and move it into the fifteenth be what was done here because it was a different law for it was a completely different mode and would you normally have a chance after a fifty a motion to make some requests to put in more evidence if you thought


and challenge and we would argue that it's not true to assert that we never check supervisor abuse it was part and parcel of our sensing argue that we brought under the sporting your collection exception


extra if it was ten minutes that he delayed addiction thirteen minutes as opposed to when he entered the citation which would have given you the extra six minutes or so what he had at that point was


trial five months after the alleged case and the united states attorney's office was well aware of the lane and what it required as far as pleading and that's why i cited on page twenty two of my brief the case of mountain french which is of


as a human as a tria would suggest that under the act of doctoring we couldn't and that seems like an argument that i don't think i don't quite understand why you don't just want that case i would think you would want it not to be a tree of these the argument to be an argument


says if it's given property we've the truck or said it is then it should be used to pay the judge the government argues conversely it shouldn't be used to pay the government it should be used as a bargaining chip


frequently i understand you going to contest how many times but he sold them frequently it's at a wholesale level he usually concludes in some selling wholesale quantities significant number of times too


what this argument suggested is ok i know who i'm selling to and i know i'm selling large quantities you must have a network and i want to keep selling to him i don't know anything more about the


allegations in support of this natural progression claims are the same ones as the accelerated injury claims in the sense that the district court found that the natural progression claims are are because of this


their operative motion notice of all the council you you have now that the south earth appeal was resolved and you were permitted to continue with your claims against caterpillar caterpillar inc is just been


thousand dollars this was efficiency when they sold them million dollars worth of equipment so that's what was the case you find all so and the affidavits that were provided indicated just


allow me to file the sentencing transcript after the hearing but i just really read that transcript recently in judge baton and in that court specifically wanted his sentence


pages of terms conditions representations and warranties contained in that agreement to bankruptcy court jurisdiction and that's really where the apple answer position takes us their


be before you today but that i think it is totally depends on what's on that page if what's on that page is really focused on transferring the assets clearing the lanes doing all the things that check off the


overwhelming that any error in excluding the ramos test would be harmless your honor sort of but i'm primarily arguing that the jury wasn't tasked with making that determination so


a very significant thing we're putting a device in the spine of somebody who suffers from paralysis after some traumatic of that like a motorcycle accident they're going to have us waste our time and their time and they injure people you


we gave ourselves eighteen months to go through these five patients and we warn that of course that might not happen and in august we issue another press release which apparently has no problem with the august press release that i was press release says


conviction that suggests that i was convicted under one part of the statute and not the other but in fact that judgment was then be it on in this relief because of constitutional grounds or but that indictment was constructively


entitled to a new hearing the question could be resolved on on this record there has already been testimony i think i think typically it would be the i g who would make that


understood that one consequence is it would not be irrevocably final because it would be subject to talons ok what is the consequence that's problematic because that's not problematic that you could successfully challenge


for evergreen the plaintiff appellant today summary judgment in this case should be denied evergreen satisfies the monsanto and mets or she does standards with undisputed material facts and disputed issues of


get of the exhaustion was not clear when the issue was addressed by the cia but not raised by the non citizen before the agency that question was settled in two thousand and thirteen for the st time so nine years


of status would be appropriate unfortunately since that time the petitioner engaged in some significant criminal activity unfortunately some of that activity was sometimes violent and so when he found himself before the board again in two thousand and seventeen the board


the primary function is to provide for naga feet or sexual services under the associated words can be locations where he is not allowed to enter shall be tailored


signed i don't believe that that would be the correct remedy for


said it simply so to the extent that b that manus discussed force under the first consisting or asked that that also would no longer


documents is consistent with reckless conduct a reasonable possibility cannot be shown of a different result on player view and therefore the conviction can be affirmed the alternative route would be to consider the divisibility of the two


this case and we acknowledge that they should not have made the statements and then you weren't willing to stand up here and boss as a representative of the justice department and make the concessions that the office made to you


would want to charge except make believe agreement that spend made between the parties fifteen to fifty kilograms when really we're talking about nine thousand kilograms it's one thing to keep the


the mound interest where there is a substantial interest which is all you need to do with respect to have an overriding interest those are really that the differences between what happens if you have a partial closure or a full closure but in both


court during the prosecutor's closing argument as well as showing the gruesome photographs again this is the epitome epitome of what rule for all three was designed to prevent allowing this evidence


activity in the well if i recall the government says that there was plenty of evidence that would support with respect to the other violations anyway so we don't need to worry about this


moving to the next point to a jury instructions on firearms racketeering if you look at the record throughout the trial the court continuously


record that shows that mr are being all had a reasonable expectation of privacy in any of these two locations and it was their burden to show this is the burn and wish they did not fulfill before this


her as well as his written reply so the deciding to school before the decision was made in this community and the focus on his integrity he said you can't do this job without integrity and the job entails not


well if i think we do because i don't live within the jurisdiction of the federal circuit to make a determination on what what the settlement is because it's a mixed finding of fact and law


their expert at that point and what he did was he he simply focused on the fact that count one county teen or claim wanting to claim eighteen so the intersecting


can wind up with a patent which we believe will never be enforceable because it lacks written description but more importantly stryker will lose claims to which it is absolutely entitled to say that carbone included an embodiment where he drilled what's


target cartridge is under pressure identified by the patent not by their expert not by references in the field not by any anything but just the teachings of the inventors what they were life on they say based on that one of ordinary skill in the art


which modifies both brands metric function and brands metric value and i remembering right or wrong there was a quite substantial dispute in the clean construction process about whether the post process


the collective dose of the nine hundred and and forty millimeters that was not done except with respect to claim twenty twenty three your honor but you distinguishing hector you say you've got to consider what the instructions


jack the clint conception of the district court with it that way there would still be be infringement because even hundred novels interpretation of the clinton structure which as you know is any value or point zero zero one outside of the


the applicant that's making certain express statements and then we can see and read and evaluate and understand what the applicant is giving out here to the examiner saying something you have and making an amendment and now we have


teach or hold the wording damages for infringing sales before the jury and in fact there were two that we cited to her maxwell and boston scientific and both of those cases in particular boston scientific is this the


power vacancy this fall or was recommended but father expressed concerns that she had the mr in the house about the cost and expense of doing this assignment now she would have taken the assignment with her without the will if he was the one


there was a complete failure of proof that parties conclusion his inventor ship claim rested on his new story that he said that there was linkage between the employed gene and the disease in


the board had not consider that lay evidence and once they made that finding that finding was the error that was committed i start to question where i was going to ask you if in


time that the position was take and the position was taken that was taken by the board in this case was relevant to the relevance all over the lady abacus they clearly didn't use that lay


did things in the definitions excuse me he excluded parts of the dictionary definitions he looked at for example big diff generic definitions indicated joinery can be furniture furniture is specifically provided porn


would mean would be what they would cover would be products that are not within the scope of heading forty four eighteen an example would be these fiberboard subheadings that talk about surface covering or lamination lamination is a process of sticking


clear and i let me ask it another way if if if we determine that what the district court met was that my personal identification number and that that negative construction is just that it's not permanently associated with would that be appropriate


that or would they have needed to ask for additional evidence or argument it would have just scored a veterans claims then perceiving in these statements from the board that it has made findings on that call yes your honor


confidential which seems to be argument by the expert witnesses as to what the situation is here and work having difficulty in see how that could possibly be appropriately marked as confidential and would you please


so you could have the lines of code that i mentioned before that point of me the invention is to take a block of code and run the native machine code as opposed to the virtual machine instructions so rather than


the but the thing is though if the computerized golf game involves attracting the attention of it involved purchases with any written gaming actually if it involved supplying game logic without interrupting the gaming action then that we different


exceptions and no variation indeed the imported cigarette compliance act which has been discussed which i'll get to as well specifically incorporates the secular and requires that cigarettes imported to the united states


became a necessary for the cold ultimately to look at the application of the formula to determine what we're sure is trivial to the court in kenya or treated the case as though there were only one ground for just a sham


should know i believe your honor that the commerce department should have used the average to average methodology in comparing their prices and not resorted to the target of something provision as an exception because i believe that they could not meet the


average average transaction method alright but it doesn't say that well first of all it talked about it does refer to the fact the targeted dumping may be occurring so they don't have to make a form of determination that is exciting and when you say that


exists for banking services and it's for insurance services why do you feel like there's some different effect that it has in the insurance area i don't think that the


product license to the person with whom it signed the license but it wants to make clear that person that i'm not giving because it's my place patent gosh why else would it point to that writing in the sentence itself screams you know you have a license


always your protected property interest in making sure that his competitors who do that apply the tax of this that you don't get money no your honor because we do have we have applied we have been rejected that's why we're in court and my position


physician and yet these actions are taken in a time frame which follows immediately upon this statement this public statement and yet we're told that these


that were just as as as as as unfounded and as and that the point being your honor that that if you had made that the statements not about protecting allegedly protected things but about other things


that has these virtual files and therefore by virtue of that it's ok that's approving this process of using unix drivers and that then engage in this process by doing that that's what results in having the real data


to blow agreed that this was a circuit device used to couples the d t r deed to the interface device and they also argued in their claim construction belief below and this is in the record at age fourteen seventy eight that it shouldn't be


whatever the disagreement there the district court's construction disregarded the statements by oceans brave right through specialist mr mantei as it disregarded its own dictionary definition that said preserved by removing natural again natural is in that


to mr mantis who developed the process does that now it does that by having had a portion of the natural moisture removed to leave room to add the essential into the new flavor now that's what happens in


gotten the plant built it would have been you know the war would have been over and similarly texaco asked originally in the beginning of the war to build a reprocessing plant the government denied that reprocessing plant because


leverage to say notwithstanding the fact that piece of information has no impact on our dumping more calculations within these reviews we can disregard everything for example in make the argument that because this is a hong


back today if there's an assignment back today that would be allowed to mars to continue the case from this day forward not from back in time it didn't rule it would not relate back to when the original case was filed would be this day forward and that's a completely different


potential benefits but also the downside risks that seems like an impossible role for the v a to undertake it might be something that a counselor or lawyer or


this in this case there's been no suggestion on the record that this individual did not relax to go for the oral rather than the written path because of some kind of financial problems in


pain disclosed switch so this you know up to the extent there's not a great deal of discussion it's because there wasn't a great deal of argument presented about whether it's your pace you did indeed disclose this but getting to that clear and convincing evidence when


that he did to if he continues to say and you know that dr lawrence was represented by a lawyer neighbor and i think that's what the question directed to the lawyer neighbor continuing and you asked delphi to contact byrd correct


misconstrued a claim limitation involving the aperture right turn opening specifically we say any hole in the court never reached that position and said that it can't be a misconstruction if he didn't define it right that's the problem there's


look at it in context look at that precise language look at the main language which presumptively triggers in one twelve six application and make a determination is that part of the claims function well i guess what i'm


program in a particular year yes your honor and i think the way they characterize that is it doesn't accurately reflect nothing but all of that there's nothing wrong with the cash return no not at all not at all and that's precisely why the agency relies on it


point six after six and that would be if the i r s the congress or the f d i c were to do something that would increase and not covered as that last option in that situation there's no dispute that we would have to share fifty


instances in which people go ahead and sign a proffer agreement they go in they give their information and for whatever reason the government decides not to use it or the government believes that


it appears that he could have gone before the b i a but now you're saying he didn't do it in time so at every turn it's there's always yet some point you were eligible but now it just seems that


conspiracy at all that that can also be used that you can infer from circumstances that they must have agreed to or they contemplated doing


drug organizations the jury didn't have to speculate first of all to get to the thousand grams they had evidence hard evidence of dealing they didn't have to engage in inferences of what this conspiracy was and we have to


whether so changing your mind is enough and the way i had read the law changing your mind before you've taken a substantial step means you haven't committed an attempt changing your mind after you've taken a substantial step means you've


or that's the guy was just my recollection or is it just she den if i that person it wasn't one of the other ones said this one more closely resemble it is one of those broad words like cops a vehicle and you don't know if it's down


we nobody knew of the beginning with the prosecutor we couldn't get it in discovery nobody knew it existed and i mean the whole thing was the whole position of the district court and i was in couse


of the claim not extent of the claim if that makes sense here it's much the same you have adult claims who who say we didn't consent to these terms and conditions because they came after we join the


i'm not trying to say i'm absolutely not trying to say something unclear i just quote the language of the world with the sentiment of a sudden well a court that language i don't understand it fully disable the content in sponsored stories will what do you mean by


hearing on behalf of the city of callista and i agree that we should look at the procedural posture of the case and it's important to look at what the claims are pled with respect to the as applied claims that we


process claims and the equal protection claims are barred as a matter of law that's would be the case the that's the supreme court case the equity lifestyle case and they'd see financing case the ordinance here is intended to stabilize park spaces


court you know to me that makes the most sense as to how it should normally work but he punted and kind of threw this case in the chaos but i just wanted to briefly touch on the on the private taking you know we are not challenging the ordinance


it would exacerbate his condition and they took many steps to try to keep him working even going back to two thousand and four there were accommodations being made or requested and including a reduced


see the detail with which he considered the questions posed to him he says he reviewed the entire record it was a subsequent question questioning of the by ms tatar and there were the record reflects at the hartford documented


hyperglycemia that he had hypoglycemic unawareness that he had insulin antibodies all of that was accepted that this is not a case where there's evidence in the record of these symptoms and the medical reviewer simply to choose to turn a blind


regulators if it's not arbitrary or capricious in my view this statute the e c away has never answered the question when a guarantor is in the exact same position as a co borrower on a no


being allowed to make an offer of judgment versus rule sixty eight which says the defendant is allowed to make an offer of judgment what your honor i think it's best viewed as procedural meaning that you never get to state law it's a diversity case we apply


instruction issue i don't think i need to add much the court i think recognizes that there's no error in giving that instruction there's no reason to reverse the case because of that single instruction even if it were assumed to be erroneous it's not erroneous


purchases and how the conspiracy had operated as a whole they just wanted to make that clear that the focus of the trial was the conspiracy as a whole and how best buy had been harmed there was some particular defendant specific


reasons given by morrison county for her terminations she only needs to establish a question of fact that her sex and her sex age played a role in morrison county's decision to terminate her now mr starr is in a very difficult situation


back and have further evidentiary findings by the district court or you asking for supplemental briefing on the issue raised in the rule twenty eight j letter absolutely we are i think we've got to flush that out


latin and it doesn't make anything about the overall population in the city of yuma yes yes your honor and the general population numbers are the ones that we are supposed to look to under the some believe this case in the second circuit which was


came out in between the filing of the complaint and the summary judgment has i mean i think it kind of both of the feather is in favor of us not you know trying to hide the ball or anything but i also want to say that


internationalize sex trafficking it wouldn't make sense why should congress any more protect a person who is kidnapped in venezuela as is the defense example and brought into this country first for sex


because we didn't argue to the jury if you look at the closing arguments we didn't arbel members of the court we didn't argue this look at the closing our him and see what was argued so i


course in california and some of these plaintiffs are from california or california like states some of them are for plain meaning states now for the plain meaning states such as texas court looks at the contract court says this is


media correspondent said it seems like the company is letting you know they are experiencing serious consequences to the product that you supplied them that they are losing money they


that the wrongful act could include negligence or something else other than a breach of contract because wrongful act in the policy is defined as a negligent act or omission


actually don't even didn't even hear defense counsel mention mention anything about antagonistic defenses during her oral argument here she is now addressed only some spillover evidence that wasn't objected to by the trial counsel and mr anderson was represented by experience


formal offer of proof made before the district court judge a great case there was again just comments as mr perkins made here about what this incident would have been with the business it was it was two o'clock in the morning outside of a strip club when mr sorrentino who is in the middle of a


the materials you couldn't talk to klein until wednesday that's right and so what i'm submitting is that the government took a risk that if if she was not telling the truth or if there was a school to tory evidence out there


page one seventy four specifically he describes a meeting that he had with ms garcia explaining to her the fact that there was a reorganization in the command and that the command for what you


that the sheriff just heard about this from somebody shortly before the trial and it was all based on hearsay it completely was the problem how is that in one nine hundred three violation if he testified to hearsay and nobody objected to it it


kill or so they had all of this information bottom line was they had no intention of pursuing it this defense counsel for whatever reason chose to stand on his theory of corpus the lek tide that the state would not be able to prove a murder


knew it was indorsed by the prosecutor immediately before the trial he knew that it was based on hearsay he made no objection when and fowler wasn't asked as much as it exactly what was was referenced in the in the direct he


determination but that doesn't answer the question as before the court is this judicial determination process constitutionally adequate and by the holies of this court it cannot be again coleman is buying seven days and i don't think there's anything magic about seven


good morning your honor sir my name is portia hampton flowers i am i'm here on behalf of the city of st paul this matter is really about a first degree driving while impaired and that's where we start and what we what have you heard from the


recurring themes of trial was kyle is not that smart guy and really he's the puppet of trevor cook well the evidence didn't support that defense for example if you take a look i think it's government


utterly unsupported by the record we wrote a very detailed trial brief that we submitted a month before trial in which we put the court and all three defendants on notice that we intended to introduce evidence that there was drug


you know it seems to me under the authority that existed back then it is still not kosher juror and whatever label we use i don't think it matters for purposes of teak certainly the right to a


in any conspiracy where the defendants have a close relationship they're involved in the same scheme or plan the jury is entitle to infer that the conspirators spoke to each other and in this case perhaps more than the normal controlled stop controlled substance


contained for f a for floor and fed in the unit differs from amphetamine by only one atom so it's pretty clear the inference from that was they were ordering a drug that they wanted to mimic amphetamine and it's written right next to the drug


that yes it's most closely similar to t h c but the concentration of t h c in marijuana is so low that the court should have used a different ratio not that it's not most similar but that they use the wrong ratio and there's only one ratio that can be used


think that relevant question is not what actually motivated counsel but what reasonably could have motivated counsel in that case counsel was in fact unaware of a legal argument that was a little that's right i'm not sure


adjudication your honor they based upon a strategic decision dealing our district court yes we're reviewing our district yes said yes our district court's decision was based upon what i consider a highly questionable assumption of


to not in the situation your honor first of all the restaurants case cited by the app pelly says that it means matches or similar to our experts said proportional to their


brief that corresponding a page twenty nine in their briefs the corresponding should mean similar constable or matching we agree it should mean similar similar comparable or matching or the words that are expert chose was proportional to which broadcom


restrictions on the government's ability when it exercises that option a as as to whether it has unfettered discretion and this particular contract does limit the second cod building to make a decision in isolation he


determine that the legacy systems could not be adequately used with the unlimited licenses and achieve the government's security needs so you're just saying the other side is


that third party user like you or me would go to the whole of the backwards process of what's being talked about in the client so why didn't the trial court by the way used a glossary definition for


modification in some sense of the eighty seven agreement as far as other provisions are concerned but it does several things not just modify it also talks about identifying


and i'd like to start by saying why it is that the accused products don't infringe either of the patents and sue with regard to the three for two patent in order to infringe when need to generate a mobile web site


go back to where you wanted to go but but take me here first you tell us what a method of operation it's not can you but you don't really define what that whatever method of operation is how do you define a method of operation that underwent


this specific selection of three hundred sixty two methods and the manner in which they are organized and arrange that let me ask you something in between what about just the concept would you say that you could prevent


houses assuming none of that that's not what is being claimed as patentable it is rather the set of expressions that name all these these things and make connections between


would be why remapped i think i don't think that we're in that position because as we know there are four factors that apply to fair use they were all contested and if i can have just a


i think on this re mand assuming that we get to it get to fair use is whether there really are any underlying facts as to which you could decide it either way and i don't


ultimate well your honor let me let me answer it in this way my answer is no that no there aren't because the factors waste so heavily when you put them together in our favor but if a corner is any doubt about that i would urge the court not to just send it back and let the


crash or something like that not just if it isn't is it just that you don't know the answer but so you're you are you suggesting that a united airlines could decide what it wanted to record


ms golden condition in april two thousand and one in fact the board in fact the v a adjudicated that kind of simply on the basis of the letter asserting a claim submitted


the news in connection utilities use a manual itself you know i tried to was reading stuff but yes i think it may be useful just maybe two sentences and then it will make it


started with the target in plain language and i believe the judge locked in one of the first who came up with these terms and then they became more and more common and now even the sport is using this


i'd also like to address the fact that the fords did not consider that neither the examiner nor the board considered applicants declarations the examiner rejected the osborne declaration because it didn't compare the prior art invention


invention is to create derivatives tradable securities those the riveted of our collateralized by underlying leases leases themselves our individual for example lease of an automobile


analogy about the fasteners how understandable is it that they solve the same problem and they do it in a way that is advantageous and i think that the question becomes is the


recorded messages there might be some spontaneous conversation that goes on in addition there's going to have to be you know but but your honor excuse me i'm sorry i didn't mean to interrupt no no but the fact


much first of all i'd like to address the question of whether or not there scripts in the bar there as it relates to the operator mode and i think that there's no question that there is a call flow that's described and our view and figures three and three would


not this falls on one side of a line or another but rather structurally this claim recites substrate of a printing press and then the substrate obviously referring back to the substrate of the printing press or at least so it would seem why is


department of homeland security it is uncontroverted that prior to the discipline in this case he had no discipline in his record at all for iraqi policemen levante we had a trial eleven


you i'm going to help you start and i'm not going to help turns around for twenty two years if it's so obvious they come mine in to solve all


certain things that are clear there is a nail nominee provision for training us that means for an article to be classified as a training issue it must be one of a shoe and two used in training


after the two thousand after july mr people in his affidavit said he talked with the source foster and told him what exactly is invention was in one of these things now in response to question the judge was looking at the flat


i think the question of whether you have to if it's a one hundred two after evasion defense whether you have to in fact appreciate the benefits of invention for you can communicate it is an open question as cancelling and well what about the facts


the first thing is that they never came out they never told them that two things one is that there was a french is below which the relationship the traditional relationship between particle sized inviolability which is smaller the particle size


i don't question they're filling the gap of the first two prongs of aletta subsidy is i question is whether or not there is a gap when you're looking at what is the appropriate benchmark against which to measure sign furnitures is a gap


the holding in sims is to the contrary that it is no longer a matter of discretion for the court of appeals for veterans claims relative to issues that were not presented below to be considered in the first instance so since there isn't even


that is a worsening of the condition based upon the surgical procedures that this report verified had been attempted and had not been successful and that those reports at the very least should have raised the question and should


jurisdiction even though it has to look at the issue in the first instance itself to decide whether that alleged error was first of all an error secondly whether it's harmless so the veterans court though it's a kind of an abnormal situation the veterans court appropriately here in the


point unexpected results have to be reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims the district court here held as follows the scope of claims for substantially exceeds the scope of the evidence of alleged unexpected results and went


is to avoid contamination the biggest issue with the prior art was you always have this problem of injecting material into a tank out of a tank and what you need to do something that could avoid the contamination problem by having the sealed unit that allowed you to


this case the test is objective intent it seems to be what they intend to sell it as are they intending to sell it as a cosmetic or they intending to sell it as a drug the question unfortunately at the bottom of the inquiry isn't what it


addressed to the place to the situation where there is no license and no exhaustion that's what the two thousand and seven agreement did it paid a year saying they didn't consider and there was no


recurring it was because the system wasn't functioning the way it was the day they bought it and my distinction i'm sorry to be so wordy yes i do your your honor i don't think the two situations are the same because if you have a read the seller


like a lot of manufacturing company having a new type of florid collagen


you think the regulation is clearly applicable that's critically issue and i guess i want to just try to figure out why how you think that because the regulation and addition to allowing for similar words


honest error cannot possibly constitutes conduct i would like to address one point that was brought up answered by misfires attorney was a question raised do we have any knowledge with regard now the first sentence of section six ended up in the


that are i think helpful in addressing that question the administrative judge recognize the unfairness of the situation to miss niner and he concluded that the conduct of office of personnel management was


remains objective lee baseless and cannot be cured by a later high profile hypothetical construction or positive construction the facts in this case have never changed there was no probable cause at the time it was filed


is that is used in the id but you know determination which was adopted by the commission but the judge never suggested that the training of these people


the cases that this board where this court has held that and those cases those cases specific coming what your take on those cases my take on those cases is it's dealing with the specific facts of the case first of all and sept second of all


p d i d p only one of which is even involved in this case why would the association through exxon have the right to challenge any part of this rule the doesn't affect a product that they


arguably they did it the right way when they looked at the national population sample at a ninety fifth percentile and they said we can derive from that that there's some level of women in the population that have an h i greatly than one but when the data came in that showed now


p as we've discussed this afternoon but that alone does not show that exxon is likely to be harmed by the rule the missing link here into the established that harm petitioners need to provide evidence that exxon actually wants to sell the i m p for using the children's


functions are subsumed within the court so for example in mississippi we know that there's a state executive agency that handles probation but if you go right next door in louisiana probation officers are defined by state statute


end of that there is a probable cause hearing with counsel and you know the whole hold to you ok the district court interpreted twelve six zero one is applicable only to police departments and other branches of law enforcement


construes courts to be outside the scope of the statute then they wouldn't be covered and you know i don't know whether this sort of whether you want to call them adjudicated functions or administrative


mean it's just it's not the county and their policies it's the judge and the rulings your honor the state statute does not prohibit the holding of hearings on weekends and holidays it would not it would not be violating state law to come into


to look at a what i would call a federal independent standard what the what this court has said in mira is that if if if if we're going to do that it says that that is synonymous


and as we brief and in fact as the court questioned with mr a clearly that includes law governing perfection in priority of leaned in so the most important answer to the court's question is that


been approximately three cars away which is roughly they figure car fifty feet so we were talking about one hundred fifty feet away from the original cup and that's


it happened but it did he had an overall procedure described to him is that part of the testimony to position let me answer making two points that i think are important to south first of all you have just one and two to your question well


colleagues us to be any more supervisory to prevent this accident would've required us to physically contact and hold mr miller which is making us an insurer of the safety of our employees which is not the law under the federal


side for a couple hours and be less trouble for me to be over there and that's something we just don't know what really we see on the railroad if the couplings are not


constitute persecution of the law but i believe that those are the narrow facts that are presented the


also just dozens of fifth circuit cases that recite the standard that says that legal determinations are reviewed to know about the government also said that


supervisors from hensel phelps were standing right next to the unsafe excavation they were watching the subcontractors employees work right beneath this unsecured excavation wall and they it's undisputed that they had the power to say


concept under the multiemployer citation policy came way downstream it wasn't in the first interpretations of the first enforcement manuals from osha notification was just given to controlling employers the sub contractor on a


a great question your honor we believe that the test is a threshold test it's not a balancing test to motives the immigration judge said look the criminal enterprise profits is the primary motivation in this case it's the


matter in also comparative evidence of what others may have done or even maybe even passed kunda by the employee it issues don't matter what matters is whether or


ignore or distort the record as to torture by the salvadoran officials the b i a said only one thing that morales is entirely clear boils down to her or her interaction with


who was one of the owners of the comer testify that it was important for his customers to know the safety rules before leaving his property with the equipment what do you do with them getting to the proximate cause issue what do you do with the argument that this things going to be as wide as it


is whether it's hooked up to an ag tractor or anything else and if you cross the line with it it's going to hit in and sadly damage somebody like mr punch a contro you're on


have even been available to the government even as robot will under the terms of the proffer even if that rebuttal exception had had somehow survived this it was merely really just using the proffered agreement in


court or to not analysis of the evidence now i do want to be clear so i'm not stating anything there are statements and in by this attorney that say we deny the defendant denies


is important to note that williams and brant isn't both of those cases the cause that both petitioners sought to use to overcome the procedural bar were due to actions that lay outside of


and twelve there would have the custom is for the sheriff to respond to the bench warrant whether counsel is appointed or not but in this instance mystic


yet no one has looked at it in the city each state as far as a non violent as that i'm aware of it has construed in other cases in action such as throwing a liquid on someone which again does not meet the cards johnson


for his claims years before mr thompson came to federal court and you can just look at the messiah elements that my opponent talked about in the opening this is the right to counsel has attached the defendant solicited by a government agent for


reserve soldier that he is places him in full time national guard duty so basically there's no remedy for her under the circumstances you're suggesting for her


facility such as the all rings club was intended to fall under colonel michel's federal status just as the court held in williams that certainly if they want to exclude people they could have steps said here they are not a single


it's about costco and i think that's not an enforceable settlement agreement on anything other than kos i get that i just wondered if he didn't there it missed the ground there was so c n n's summary judgment victory if you will


verbatim that that p s r paragraph would be in any way inconsistent with he said all the checks are for liquor as well as food all the checks means all the money at that moment times for liquor food and you could have the impeachment with that to go to your own


the about or should the sheriff has said this is why i'm opening up a facebook page it's so you know about us or we know about you how is that conceivably not law enforcement it isn't as if this year of this just on a


with us because there seem to be about two or three different issues that all seem to be the same thing but there running back and forth about concerns about the standard of review here you are the noble


case where that is a case where it dealt with where it dealt with the the amount of restitution in the tax loss formula and it being applied first to the government and then switched in transition