causes it the facility to longer comply with a da i think we have to assume that based on the very complaint in front of us of course we're your dog in this fight because because what it


engage in specific provable documented actions you know the so the thing being voted on now was could not engage in the actions or do anything more which is why the florida supreme court said well in this case to participate it means to vote in


it's called oral argument is


rely on dr current dr alexander who made the first diagnosis over five years after he left the mine and the other guy dr perper doesn't examine him until six years almost after he left the mine but then we're going to say oh


feel so so if it says if it's as clear as you say this was about credibility isn't it just as clear in that statement that she was reading the statute that required some kind of safe movement certainly understand


under the post conviction that it does not assert courts are prejudiced in any manner which is the only way you can get around the success of the bar for success of post conviction oh surely doesn't race or dress the issue about which you have caught it because these issues have already


them to benefit here anyway it should be affirmed but it's important for the court to realize that this was never really characterized there's nothing in the record all plaintiff can show is citing a few schedule nothing of


how the thing project is financed designed constructed how it operates and what rate it charges so by coming together they're able to collectively maintain some control over their own water


means despite the twenty thousand despite mary's test i didn't run they can to lead with any more specificity what went wrong with the standing of john's death that they can't say anything beyond


the actions you took while a fiduciary that is all we're saying is that we get past the dismissal stage and we here and then we go forward and marry rebuses she can so for the reasons we've stated here and for the


then she received conservative medical treatment for left shoulder resulting from the car accidents also the situation is that doctors clamor for our


videotape compassion all also shows that the defendant did not possess an unreasonable belief in the need for self defense the only evidence that would tend to show that he did was his own


if you look at time that the mother had with these children but you also look at the other aspect of custody which is not just physical custody but legal again records clear my client was the one making the decisions with respect with


medical treatment albeit he said i hit my knee on a comb over there was no evidence to indicate an actual and in fact the evidence was to the contrary because the film of this taken over a year before his alleged


clearly basically rehabilitate herself and that she specifically said that she considered you know his mental health the letters his character and the mitigating factors but found that they


can have some carrots in the fridge doesn't mean they can take a cookie from the counter but reality section twenty is more like when i tell my little girl she get any snack in the kitchen now includes cookies on the counter and fruit the fridge and less money the general assembly


or public body to perform a ministerial duty where they exercise zero discretion mandamus isn't designed for figure out what right to petition might ave what the public officials duty is supposed to


word before is not in section ten a that's because it's in the municipal code in the in the intergovernmental cooperation act it's in the requirements for publication of any


its burden they believe that the evidence was sufficient to support that roger may exercise ordinary care which brings me to my rd and final the


that she doesn't have but we can't consider the income that he does currently have because he may not have it in the future so i mean to me that that seems a little in contrast macnair


com ed for any damages that that stemmed from the storms where the power went out this is not a situation like that this is a targeted case where ammons negligence in designing the terminations


in that plant should have filed it in the circuit court and they used the plain language of scheffler in motions filed by their where they say that you know claims for civil damages lie in the in the circuit


on monday and so we had that in between i believe it was actually in between the time of the the national stay and the revised i mean i don't think i want


prove absolutely that we would win our case we had to just raise a fair question that we could now i think if it goes back down be upset the court below could easily modify the injunction based upon new evidence based emitted by the defendants and


that element they're not going to address that in their house and that's just the plain reading of the policy and it would if you look at it at nearer home they talk about making case that you know


witnesses on one side or the claimant who on the other side they were in favor of the claimant based on the layman's witnesses and their argument is what it what they got it wrong and so we should be a person because they got it wrong but my argument is the basis


testified she didn't even know he was on these medications and then she recounted that ok yes she did know about medication this didn't take into consideration their side effects she didn't talk to dr wachter she didn't talk to randy edmunds


edmunds for not seeking work the employer has put forth an effort to find him another type of job to find any other type of activity that he can perform and mr edmunds has not taken any of those steps also just to


adjusters too that will be surely working at least four point five eight hours of overtime a week answer there will be a gesture to judge question and whether or not mr portman would have that opportunity he may or may not have it just depends


i'm sorry if the mandatory regular i mean it under your theory won't overtime would be included he's the only thing you're doing is taking his regular time buses overtime and dividing it by fifty to one seeing averaging x number


question as we stand here today that this girl cannot testify and did not testify in the trial that she knew at that particular time one day whether frank you've ever been sexually so


believe that that will the fact that she didn't have the tampon and they had been removed is any indication of penetration or any indication of sexual intercourse none whatsoever


for his innocence but this concert vision shows in the town the circumstances that in actuality he was guilty he was clearly trying to cover this up he did everything you could any did a very good job of getting to that point where there's at least


right at the issue is whether you're employed per employee of course at the time of the accident or seventy two hours afterwards became seeing that this lady's in a bad way so you know what we've got businesses and you know this


message that this court may be sending in his decision is to what extent are we going to allow a trial court to substitute its will in judgment for the


there and were being made and were rather reflected further in the guardian light of the report regarding all the animosity and just from between these people


council not go ask someone from who had lived with the child at the in that time period which was two thousand and two the child was in two thousand and


into the vane and we don't know if he said it loud arash or whatever now isn't that a substantial step or a step or the happening if he wanted her to get in there and mean i don't know what


from should objected to more maybe he should ask them to be stricken from the record just like a prosecutor maybe could have not said to you but they were relevant they were things that were supported by the record look at the


with anybody who was assigned a specific location according to you or give it could not ever be a traveling employee it could be traveling twenty nine days out of a month in different locations but if they get assigned to a specific location where indefinite period of


pertain to the child abduction but that's a different matter it's not that the state had the say had the burden to prove that but an expert has the right within their expertise to choose what


my definition that uses the same terms but that's a little different than saying that there's no understanding of what will be tional capacity as within the mental health field and also it was


prosecutor who knew the zap me what he was doing he knew he was born to run a mistrial with that he deliberately


there was no foundation there couldn't be a court decisions you know mike just made it clear that police reports are hearsay and prejudicial to the rights


are doesn't that leave us in kind of a standard oil situation here and it's just the trial judge says i consider the factors and i'm leaving everybody where they are and with no determination of what their


so the court does rely on us before and considered my client a reason occupant under the rulings of u s b thorton and also consider the search to be a valid


protected class were treated differently so if you haven't already noted i went straight to the comparable issue because i think that is probably one of the stronger issues that absent direct evidence of illegal


plaintiffs to determine who their comparables are and it is for the court to make an initial determination as to whether those comparables meet all of the standards under the law to actually act as comparables and here we say that we have met all of those


violations over many several years what's the factual dispute that a trial would have to resolve as to that the factual dispute is in delta's documentation itself because in the disciplines for


moving for guidance or treatment guidance how to proceed and there's just no supreme court law giving guidance on


of counsel due to lack of resources they have no obligation to continue assisting inmates i think that underscores actually why it was inappropriate for the state court to consider post conviction proceedings an adequate substitute for a direct appeal without giving


with respect to this plaintiff and the court still held that that was not enough to show that freddie mac put that plaintiff on the list in order to interfere with plaintiffs businesses in this case there's nothing in the second amended


in that particular instance and because he exercised pollution it would not be possible for the employer in that case johnson controls to have actual knowledge ahead of time that that injury was certain to occur so


these things we don't know for example perhaps try to counsel did have the fiance try to look for the receipt for the ring and she couldn't find it why would the fiance have received the ring well that's a good question i'm not sure why she did she apparently she did because


just a very brief judgment only said that the issue was premature with regard to the damage camp he said he already ruled on ok so let's let me just leave you with two things subs in terms of substantive testimony


until then they hadn't had in the that the record reflects any particular problem with the guy and then all of sudden he moves one hand in his face and well i guess i would say two things


administered well he was on the ground hands or behind his back to death he's on top of them saying as likes i submit that he's restrained at that point too there's no you need to use or it's really to a just force it's done to punish him likewise the


in order to be able to access something that was stored on that external storage device so if this was the equivalent of a file cabinet the file cabinet would have been in the office he


it's as judgment he points out your client made it a part of the network so there's a possibility that there are work documents that he should not be able to take out of the workplace and they they had to they had to go in there to


video evidence as well as the testimony through the deposition show that in fact there was excessive force and that the determination should be made by a jury the facts of this case are pretty straightforward not overly complex essentially what we have here


it was just petitioner in the passenger seat and just in the driver's seat of the car they escort him out of the car in the cocaine is found on the passenger side of the car exactly where petitioner was sitting so the evidence in this case is the district court


laid out some fairly good cases for on the half of their clients but the end of the day mr lawley said i want to plead guilty and went to the examination did you do this


federal defender's office and so he does not have an absolute ride to go out and hughes a lawyer i mean the court of schooling to appoint a lawyer for you know right yes


to go back to the testimony here and that is that the blue cross blue shield investigators literally ran the entire show and at the law enforcement officers were merely spectators to blue cross blue shield doing what they want to do


motley meeting with mr adams several times and during one of those conversations mr adams indicates that the plaintiff and i used sr and jr because they both have the same name father and son were junior told him as to


what he wanted in the appraisal the appraisal was inconsistent with public records the appraisal was inconsistent with two recent appraisals that mr adams had done just a couple years earlier where he did the whole property for like six million and now they're just


order to get it and it's it's not unlike for example if we were to say to a bank robber on trial in the brink up or gets up on the stand he says what i was going to do good deeds with this money what doesn't matter if you're going to do good deeds with the money that you rob you still


absolutely no proof that there was any specific instructions given to anyone in the phantom's outlaw motorcycle club to go murder anyone that day and if you look at the other things that happened in this case like for example if you look at the testimony one of the things the


changes was do you you don't think these defendants had anything to do with this do you it was a leading


found that the those amendments were retroactive and because they had been issued before or after sentencing for the defendant and after the appellate briefs had been filed that he says he should be allowed


this merger that's taking place and they go in and they have standing to object in the first instance of the merger but at the end of the day the supreme court says what you're complaining about is low prices but they're not below cost prices ok and there's no standing


banquet bankruptcy courts findings that there is a sixty percent sixty to seventy percent chance that the retirees would lose a family litigated that's a good offer it's a very good offer because the total being withheld is about fifty


stop the person and bailey the decision wasn't made until five minutes later a mile away from the house that's not the case here here the officers attempted to detain mr price on the spot and just didn't manage it because of the back additions of the road


officer is going to write a search warrant search of it go get the warrant they go get the warrant but they radio back to the house and mr price who has been begging them to take him to jail at this point because he doesn't want to be labeled a snitch and all the neighbors are out on the porch is watching to see what's going


holding on to the steering wheel as they were attempting at first verbal come on now come on out you know what's the problem get on out you know do i need to taser you this sort of thing and they attempt to pull him physically from the vehicle and are being


that you look to the face of the pleadings drawing all the at differences in the favor of the pleader summary judgment says ok we've gotten all the evidence that's coming before this case have you got what you have to have to prove


tape and there was no physical injury here there's no suggestion of it for how many ways an officer elmore you win and summary judgment but that's not the stage that's before us and we are required


then to cure any i don't think so because i think given the procedural history of this case they're going to appeal it so even if we put that i think they would have appealed it on another basis as the court is aware the


conscious choice about different levels of force that are required we have six circuit precedent judge mary you were on the panel i believe in miller v sanal at county that talks generally about the idea that under graham v connor you have a right to be free from the


objection here would have been better i don't know if trial counsel was simply relying on the two earlier objections both to the trial brief and then at the pretrial hearing saying i object to that evidence coming in it would have been better to have an objection here like


marijuana at the age of fourteen and he would only used it three or four times a week until his arrest for the instant offense the defendant noted there were brief periods he was able to abstain brief periods he was able to abstain


taken by the six circuit is whether or not we apply federal labor law or state common law to the issue of contract formation involving collective bargaining agreements in ruling that


make reference to is the idea that in this case we have an agreement that doesn't involve employees our clients for over forty years from a factual standpoint have been told you're not members


indictment was not tied in any way to his indictment she was indicted in the same taste but on entirely different counts and two this is an after the speedy trial acted run and they couldn't go


that's not a question that's a statement that's argument that is clearly going beyond just controlling the truck trial or letting the allowing the trier of fact to make a decision and allowing the process to go


nothing in michigan law which is the good of the equal the michigan elliot larson civil rights gender discrimination case mears title seven which has we know that i'm asking you if there is an equivalent to


the female employee learns of the discrepancy goes to her employer and says this is ridiculous we're doing the exact same job i'm being paid fifty thousand dollars less and there's evidence the employer is aware of this and has intentionally


title seven violation and at the same time the employ or could fail to carry its burden of proving an affirmative defense under the equal pay act so it's possible to have a different defense or a different result and that is why


the attorney the attorney made that comment at trial the transcript reveals that that the witnesses understood it he was talking about and he was able to get the points that he wanted across to the jury namely that there were many possibly millions of


tell you the the distinct possibility that this woman is innocent is the kind of thing that makes trial judges but even particularly appellate judges loosely put my the very


as and again i think here understanding albert as being about statutory challenge is under blocker to the idea of punishing the same type of conspiracy with multiple conspiracy


they weren't singled out there wasn't any evidence of personalized persecution they were like many europeans during the world war this place persons by bombing but they weren't persecuted for their political opinions


mr singh appealed to the board of immigration appeals i was twelve pages out of this the numerous points were made by the immigration judge who were brought up to actually about four reasons why he came back and said now look at these issues and across the board of immigration


circumstances you know ample warning ample time no showing that he did not understand the warning that ok we're going to go forward without a lawyer now made me it would have been sort of a kinder thing to do when


conditions in the country have been worse yes raising what the prospect that there's an increased risk of future process of persecution if they were returned and


counsel something that again my colleague said a few minutes ago was that she was told by her counsel that she would let her know when her petition for if you did it that's actually not in the record if she's never indicated that before today that he would tell her


not done so he has also not spoken to his wife sense he's been in the united states so while mr khan's testifies that he fears persecution if he goes back he has no direct evidence


i would i would disagree because it says very clearly we hold that the statute allows the ins to do so to reinstate that order of deportation


record he knew where the marijuana was being grown and he took the police there his claim his when we get to the merits his claim really comes down to the fact that it's when it's convenient for him to be ignorant he's ignorant and when it's convenient for him to know where the


confirmed the integrations judge's conclusion that petitioner lacks credibility and it's very important to remember that under this court's case law and under the supreme court's decision in allies to carry as it's insufficient for petitioner simply to present


before hand i have no idea what my colleagues think and it seemed to me that if your cash basis taxpayer dominion and control is the end of the story it's income if you're an accrual basis taxpayer it just doesn't much matter you


purchasing cooperative or whatever you want to call it is looking at a circuit court or a supreme court case and just shaping its transaction to fit it correctly the issue here is whether it was income not when it became


the record with the documentary evidence that the government does not protect these people after the fall of the soviet empire the rise of nationalism and christian orthodoxy has been on the rise so for anybody


information about that there was a supplemental declaration for who it was who was representing the family that present counsel but just to make clear the supplemental declaration which actually details that


leave that the case is distinguishable because in that case there was a kind of a nebulous hard to find family social group there was some credibility problems the petitioner had and the court simply


somewhere it's hard to articulate that somewhere there has to be some kind of you know in the family they have to be some kind of motivation based on political or one of these protected grounds that not just the family


boat the box was checked and the i j a just overlooked it and even though the petitioners failed to appeal nevertheless the ins failed to


had indicated was somehow so important to magically transform a foreigner into someone who had a stake in this country and some you know at


in particular she was concerned that he used a different last name than the relatives who submitted documentary evidence but in the end she alternately agreed that using the cast name which the rest of the family didn't use was an


before the person the refugees put in we move the proceedings he has to first be referred to the district director for a determination and processing of his refugee claim if the district director if terms that he's


had clearly indicated that market based rates were filed rates in its order of july two thousand and five two thousand and one opening up massey refund proceeding which is actually in part


and he's a born in the side of the government obviously he's you know politicizing against the government you know like the government is trying to overthrow the government through and through democratic processes i guess and someone comes


political and she had no other cost the government i mean this was soley because she refused to kill one of her patients so on that basis she can't show that she's entitled to protections


were not carrying out it's the presence of threats threats or just another way of saying we don't want you here or join us and comply with what we want you know the thing the fact that


be i used its discretion in denying reopening on the grounds that they have failed to leave during the time that they were permitted under voluntary departure and the statute that


different places a different things in the transcript of the record as i read it was that the occurred on the way to the funeral


that verse credibility i j they categorize the adverse credibility findings by saying these are really important these are sort of important these are not important list


parents at the funeral in the photograph without the mask is inconsistent with the description of the injuries there's not much nowhere does the judge address the explanation and doesn't that violate our


say to the reference that was made in the apple least three the board reasonably relied upon the united states senate report regarding ratification of the convention against torture which clearly articulated that


on the


personal condition well it's only a change in condition in that it's now possible to prove what her condition was all along the seventh circuit that's


that's what's being argued here and that that's when i get in trouble because then i'm trying to sort out what how that all fits within the existing status of the law we've had so many changes in the immigration law it's hard to get through this if you're saying it's key on


is what happens through her as a result of the way she was carter what happened i'm not i don't have any i'm not targeting crowing about this morning i'm seeing what happens next is this about two twelve see here on our much larger than to talk to there's


because they don't understand immigration law they claim it was better to pursue the adjustment of status but the adjustment of status required of us petition and he's been teaching requires examination of that first marriage so the claim that we


what the court has to keep in mind is there was no marriage fraud finding it by the immigration judge in effect the lar of this case now is that she has been found to have entered a sham marriage for immigration purposes not for this particular petition for review but the law of her


as to the actions of the other party officials torture torture mother whether whether the her aunt as a witness could have testified and given additional supplemental testimony as to their past to


in this kind of a circumstance is a motion to reopen hearing by the board it is notice and an opportunity to be heard it is not an evidentiary hearing it is a testimony it is not any of those things the burden is specifically placed on the alien to bring forward the evidence that


who are who are doing that it's a big i guess it serves humanitarian purpose to allow non attorneys to do this but it's highly inappropriate then to to really hold the yelling to be exact letter of all these of these documents which


circuit opinion was not familiar and i know that that's true that it isn't quite well known within the immigration court that i'm not sure which i'm not sure which is worse in that case if you it was so well known and he didn't know about it


had applied for it i believe two years prior and considering the fact that the immigration judge does not accept hold itself out to be an expert in the way driver's licenses are issued in fact i believe she says that she's not really sure how that


exactly a fair reading of it your honor because it certainly can serve you issue you can arguably consider that issue in this case but the but the board of immigration appeals we've not extended the law to cover that situation


reopen the amended motion reopen the facts that were presented to the authorities changed slightly at one point he had to leave school because other kids were not in misbehaved later it's changed to the government as was was coming to get me so


obligation to show that it cannot be feasible implemented right now you're saying they did not even put in any evidence to the


well i think it's important to keep in mind that what was really driving the length of the extension here were matters that aren't even an issue in this case what was really driving it was that there are certain improvements the state is making


clearly a more stringent measure it's the south coast role for zero three this state has not adequately demonstrated why that control measure is infeasible in the state of arizona declined to do so


did the disappearance of the first one was i believe seven or eight months later and it was while petitioner was in this country that he indicated he received a letter from his mother that one of his colleagues may have


advertisement so for the first time effective august one two thousand and six the f c c regulation ads or whose goods or services are advertised or promoted in the unsolicited


court it was granted us to two questions one was the scope of the implied certification theory and whether there can be a claim under the implied certification theory the second was whether the implied certification theory in


but over at least the two that we have is record evidence we do have state sponsorship of mungiki action i think that's where you see the relationship between the kenyan state and i'm geeking now part of the problem is that the agency


said when he's doing well here's what the facts are here's what we heard but then we get to the analysis portion and the expert testimony vanishes same thing happens at the board of immigration appeals they adopted affirm the immigration judge's decision but they never bring up


well certainly not for any good reason that's for sure but the question is because you have a gun doesn't mean that you're going to go conspire to sell drugs which is an important distinction as relates to my client do


and what is your response to your opposing counsel's argument that you have a situation where the government comes in without statistical or other information were guarding why they selected the amount of drugs that were


concurred on an issue of procedural defaults and you said in that case that when a petitioner does everything in his power to present the issues to the state courts it was troubling when there was procedural default and this brings us to an issue that assuming


to how broadly the term return information what the kind of broad category of information whether the name of an applicant is part of that well i think that it is part of


this case is that this data collected language in sixty one of three seems to be used by the i r s as a way of never having to hand over bad paper in a case brought by a taxpayer and


all of that information because that's what this is a system to identifying information control dates is just the date the thing is the applications follows it right or my wrong i think it's the date that the inspection began you might be right on


simply sit down with the i r s and say which things they will turn over to you because they know you're going to get it eventually anyway but well i can say to them yes or no the answer is no but i can say this that judged a lot


your honor the much of this information is in our hands that control day is in our hands those dates are really important actually because then we can see you know how but at what rate were people being filtered into this


betting but it also shows conspiracy that's right runner and i think jerry can infer that that he has reached his mental agreement by virtue of the fact that only over again he's taking steps to help them succeed in their venture


and there's nothing to suggest they weren't in it and i understand they don't have to prove it but when craig gross for example says we've been doing this for years starting at two previous locations then those defendants are in the conspiracy unless for some reason i think they're not in the conspiracy


together and treated as a single sentence multiple sentences that are treated as a single sentence you get the extra point if that's what happened but if you just have one sentence in the first place then you didn't have any treatment of multiple sentences


sentenced to twenty years you know i mean what sense does that make well it makes sense because one of them might get thrown out and the other one will still operate but if you give you get them together then one of them's thrown out but you've got to get retried right i don't want to answer his question but


we would have been able to take the depositions of the defendants in this case we would have been able to ask questions such as be did you just did you just did anybody report for example to sheriff showed him that there was a secret compartment


he pled guilty as to a violation of the civil rights of the way neighbors and indicating that he testified on truthfully at mr nabors trial and if you look at the testimony from the lucas criminal trial what he said was he was in unfamiliar surroundings not


situation to keep from the public information that should be available the defense pilloried us for for criticizing this local rule and then lo and behold once later after this local rule been in effect for years the sun just


the first one i i think i'll just start with is that the issue that mr kelly raised in the court below and in his petition before the


evidence should be considered we asked the court to look at that entire record and that includes the information that shows that this was on the trajectory of going to trial instead on a day when mr edgar


trial to show different perspectives where people were standing where the bullets went where the gun was being held and where other people were involved where other people were at the time of the apprentice the mirror the bear reference as we argue


counsel was and this was a key part of it was not receptive to certain financial ledgers that he felt should be used as an exhibit and she felt that authenticity issues this is not the sort of thing of which


sentencing memo below it indicated because global services were it was appropriate to use the entire amount that they received as the last figure here district court didn't rely on that the district court


the pooled acreage correct correct you need a declaration in order to reform and the fact that your declaration the d p you guess that you filed here purports to reserve to you the right


the federal courts that's where the ohio department natural resources to take care of


that you can't prevail on that argument because you didn't raise a below them what are we left with we're left with your honor i'm a description i would propose a definition for discussion of least acreage as


parcels that were not initially included so there was a reformation and a modification an amendment of that argument about how the lateral what outside the boundaries of the original pooled unit really seems to


supported by objective testing in the form of a baseline polysomnogram fee and a multiple sleep latency test as well as by dr jones is clinical observations at the time he wrote his last opinion he'd been treating patty for


mental or nervous disorders and it's on page five of my opening brief it's on thirteen dish one number ninety four of of the record it lists


he's actually the type of physician that is appropriate for a case like this which means a physician who reviews limitations and restrictions as a result of medical conditions and how they affect a person's ability to work


it's interesting because there wasn't any occupation determination in my view the defendant says there was so i don't know whether that constitutes a waiver of the right to remain and in the court can just order any occupation benefits


it's true he was not a party to the counter claims but plaintiff marks pardon me the count in its brief and i quote says the factual and legal issues were identical and they


and in control distrust and in control the beneficiaries from the get go but their interests have always been and will always be aligned and they were and all the trust means you control the beneficiaries i believe he does and i believe


that's a fair question your honor and i'm not i don't mean to imply the board had knowledge of any of it one way or another the records that i'm saying that were produced in discovery and different were from individual schools various discipline was there discipline handed out for ball tapping


that is at least one indicia of reliability of his identification it was confirmed by one of the defendants that she was actually involved and he correctly identified her yet first robbery in the


it is true that but at that point in time there was no information available about these defendants now police have suggested that one things that could have been done was to file an action for discovery under ohio


it could have collected the court and medical records and had them reviewed by experts and made no attempt to do this worst within within the session limitations in summer two thousand and thirteen the state admits that it received the medical records that disclosed the


the posture of maxim and its nurses is somewhat different from the other defendants in that as has already been noted they were mentioned in the internal affairs report the redacted version that was that appellant concedes that he


that mr peterson died as a result of having received inadequate medical care as they allege in their first lawsuit so what do you do with all this language


would get a new trial he would get a new trial under the crawford standard not under the roberts standard and under crawford this testimony is non testimonial and because it's not


trooper saying to reported to his immediate supervisor that the officers that were there behaved excessively and acted with excessive force so to say they all agree must mean that the county's position now is that they acted excessively because that's what trooper saying or an eyewitness


sheep of the family his parents were emotionally distant how does that matter to whether the company or the brother shouldn't loan him a van on a particular afternoon


this is associated with this conflict of interest claim the facts are normally very much related to the criminal context


the the points that the court was trying to eliminate to get out of the other side what what will the record reflect if we go back to the district court and i think the simple answer is there is no record there are no other


language goes it's a minimum benefit it's not the actual full benefit the full benefit we have to look to such in four point one and the four point one provides the formula not the commencement date the formula to calculate the disability pension


to do just as well as anyone can do she's done well but she's not illiterate she's not college educated they should not literate she filed all number of pleadings in english the literate to that extent she certainly


and i think it's pretty clear that all the line of cases make clear that irregularity and prejudice is a question effect now we specifically asked for discovery in this matter


wasn't identified during the first of four by his at this liquor stablish men of crack cocaine from the head bartender his name was taken off the reports in the focus shifts to somebody else appropriately which are in agreement that he would not have known that his


serious risk they admit that objectively they were on notice so how is it that a trained professional who understands diabetes doesn't also subjectively abrahamian


day or friday in order to draw blood and he's going to see dr bell he's in on monday i think it's significant that dr bill hazen the jail physician never said get this man to the hospital today nancy allison never said give


were company one and the four individuals on the other pursuant to that are they signatories to a contract that affects you why did that plant or is it just some i mean i had the notion that


fifteen minutes to give this court my argument as well i heard the opponent being told the same thing be it fifteen minutes well


the balance of equities and change that the interest you know the weight of the interest of the party's interest in the case there the problem with this case as i see it is that there's nothing beyond martina's


the appeal and then they said well ok we couldn't prove our profits we got the unjust enrichment damages you denied the injunction and you deny the royalties all of which is how the


well in cotton the supervisor specifically told the people to lie under oath so that difference is not whether he lied under oath but whether he was being asked to lie under oath on or in fact so when you say all you've got to show that he lied


plaintiffs knew darn good and well that this was not a perjury issue in fact in the jury charged dialogue at page eight nine and there abouts plaintiffs counsel is trying to get the judge to just have an


if you know if upon leaving an employer not to compete for a certain period of time and that's where all that reasonable in this case law arises from correct


specific number of distributors under specific trade names it said this is yours in one thousand nine hundred eighty three that was what was assigned and that's all that was there was bars paid p p i for licensing to sell in mexico


with respect to council's decision counsel test why would why would counsel make a decision about introducing evidence of intoxication if laurie carter had not said the


separate occasions he could have had a mental disturbance to the same level but at that point in the in the trial counsel knowing all the evidence and the evidence was overwhelming you know he not only were there


performance prong on the on the error there were counsel made an error with respect to the to the change in the statute but in our view the error is only significant to the extent that it impacted whether or not his


immune from liability under the statute and there's no cause of action the second section require it i think is kind of supplements that next in the sense that you have a a valid warrant on its face or


in that capacity in some respects at other plants as well perhaps the most interesting thing about the court's ruling and what we feel like is probably the biggest error


replaces the actually there was a new job created for him that's exactly right there was a new job created for him or with him in mind in late two thousand and eleven


circuits take in these appeals the government sites one case in re warrant december nine hundred ninety seven we have jurisdiction what would you have this court thank you i think


independently and send it to the prosecution team that's not what this is what this filter structure does it adds two layers of protection for the privilege it involves the company's counsel to to create that universe of potentially privileged documents


automatically now i know ok now let's put this case was it reasonable to infer that based on the affidavit for supporting the search warrant it was reasonable to infer that based


from the medical directors here tucson that generally describes what happened during residential treatment you have a one paragraph letter from an outpatient physician from knoxville who had seen are off and on and a second letter from him you


two are not available for a violation of regulation that implements section eleven thirty three so in this case even if we were the plan administrator in the case last clear on that even if it says even if the plan administrator could


clearly established law the first prongs i think something rockeymoore because there's no constitutional violation obvious you don't need immunity in the first place but i think sometimes the way we look at those cases can can your detractors from the fact that immunity


at length that they had before them at the time as to how they could react to this situation i would note one last irony in this case and that is if you read through the whole deposition of ms brown you see that she herself had been in various points a


pusing me a little bit is that you were saying that st rita's is the stay put placement but then when you were comparing the school that the child and the child's parents sent him to a vers


case is the the district is relying upon or in a in a pluggable because the change in placement didn't occur during the during the case so i asked you you can unilaterally put your


saying they're bound by their proposed by e p then why aren't the parents bound by the proposed i e p which invision transitioning into the public school the distinction in that is that it wasn't necessarily the p but the


investment that that individual would be protected for example by whistleblower protection and would be protected by the first amendment because the law encourages corruption to be brought forward so that the public dollars not squandered


training what was useful to say about that i think in this particular case when you apply can the law that was in that was


knowledge that creditors weren't even aware that this claim was out there they took no steps as far as we know because they weren't even notified that there were assets available to be distributed so there was nothing their creditors


robbery statutes out of crime of violence if you if you can interpret taking from his person to mean it's not taking it from his person it's it can be as you said miles away hundreds of miles away


ryan where i don't i don't disagree with the court however in looking at just north carolina law which defines the statute for common law robbery here i think that you


court and baker the courts have said that the court should not allow indiscriminate hearings by or risk eliminating the chief searches of a police system which are speed economy and finality and that's why extraordinary circumstances are


section nine point two that specifically says that an insurer i'm sorry what agreement are we talking about this is called the contracted ministration agreement and this was in the bankruptcy court as a document number three sixty six dash five


i thought that was in accordance with your argument one of the default provisions which is why the city had to come in and offer its casino revenue is because one of


what i mean while we're on the specific point on what is your response to mr landau's point about section five point four of the collateral agreement which i brought the wrong pile of doc primary doc i brought her arguments for not having


opportunity to give himself up and he doesn't do it eventually they get down to the basement and this is taking a walk and all this time this guy is in compliance so they're looking through the basement it's dark and yes they do


vault in in a perspective with with ratio of the consent agreement yes judge well there is there are provisions in there about this deadly force and excessive force problem that apparently the


question started to take you on but i see or you know i designed in the aggravated assault statute there's when we get down towards the end the key words the judge rogers was focusing on it says intentionally or knowingly attempts


a make if if some three says intentionally or knowingly you're right your honor but i think part of the problem mean we could argue about whether the intentionally or knowingly in one statute applies to commit an assault or the intentionally or knowingly and the other one does but it


prime example of this is the language in the russell case where the court said the six carefully integrated civil enforcement provisions down in the statute provide strong evidence that congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it


lives in a society in which you know people engage in fairly intelligent conversation and i can answer that your honor i think in this situation this is a specific


could you please handle this case i'm not capable of handling it i'm not competent to handle it the relationship between the parties in this case went far beyond the as as the the pleadings allege we provided


offender registration act that identifying sex offenders to the public to alert the public to the risk of recidivism posed by those sex offenders in their community it advances public safety here it's not clear


offer quote enrichment to the educational experience take place in an educational setting and serve to quote enhance the accomplishment of desired educational goals it is undisputed that i say is a state actor for civil rights


acute need to to allow the public to oversee that entity under fire which is the point is the way preamble makes clear that's why we have this statute is so people can monitor their government and we ought to be able then to monitor them and deter and in order to


intent must be proven it is often shown through circumstantial evidence there is very rarely direct evidence from defendant acknowledging his intent and so certainly the extensive compelling evidence that is outlined in the


shorty's testimony it support the choice testimony yes it was in that your client was guilty now if they think that we're going to enter into media rights contracts so we can go well a case like


but the officer set the whole thing in motion he was the one that decided to get the defendant to the hospital against his rights he had every right to say i don't want treatment maybe he thought it would he couldn't afford it he didn't want to go to the hospital and incur an


to the limitations of the common law because it is a new offense that is the most rational interpretation of the statute in this case it's true to the legislative intent and in accord with the majority of jurisdictions that


removal of the item from the victim's possession complete dispossession but what the majority below in defense council are trying to do now is a void that absurd


question in reading all of the cases that the parties have cited in the briefs that were submitted to the court and including the the weather all case there is a theme and a


of line of cases it's something that didn't need to be introduced into after the senate had already been found guilty so burns is not controlled here in the court should employ its usual second amendment analysis and as discussed under that analysis


if you look at the order entered by the trial court i think probably starting at paragraph five through like thirteen there is a description of the services that it term and exactly what happened


what you're really arguing about is the trial court's finding that there was some work done and the difference between some work and anough were to make this not pro forma it's really


under the consumer product you have to show actual damages well you have to yeah i think we did we were we did was we said they wouldn't have they wouldn't have gone through with those are both of our plaintiffs indicate they would not have gone through with this they would have not paid this


drugs was that the cause of the car accident we don't think the state has to prove that here we don't think the state will ever have to prove that in something charged under section a sex but we do think that the defense should be allowed to put on evidence that nothing to do with


it's a violation of a cardinal rule statutory construction you can't read this statute in a way that renders meaningless part of the statute that's what they've done that's what the state has done on


and offenders are required to register in person with the police in the jurisdiction where he's staying so so when he's registering this form was used by the forest park police when he was registering in forest park the use of the secondary address line


there's no history of violence for the defendant only because these statements came in that were not reliable to begin with and totally inadmissible that's how they were able to argue that


protected it was a failure to appropriate a particular level funding in a particular year council your time is expired pleasure said one thing it did very briefly very briefly on the


eighty six i agree with co counsel that karl hospital's counsel on this question the statute needs to be read as a only a single part of a two part analysis in all the cases that this court has issued going back


injuries certainly that's another factor that weighs in when we talk about a course of action the things that she was thinking of but we also could go to the harris versus thompson case in which this court looked at willful and wanton conduct as a matter of law on a directed verdict issue and


no the agreement is to provide assistance and support to say


simply interpret those facts based on a very clear statement of the law or is the will are so broad and by the law i mean the application of guilt to these facts is that apparent agency doctrine so broad that a jury needs


sentence greater than what he had been told is that it if further demonstrates that this defendant was not misled in these of management he was not prejudiced he was not misled into making an unknowing or unintelligent waiver in this case


it need happen is that the defendant be made aware of the dangers of self representation on a very broad statement not a specific statement delineating exact precise knowledge that is exactly contrary to the


because we're talking about payments to the employee in large part we're talking about a lost wages lost income council though if you try medicals were included in that settlement haven't the attorney fees already been paid on that


generally civil cases generally and even in criminal cases except for constitutional error reserved for direct review to impose upon the party trying to show that type of prejudice that it did likely affect the


be taken under advisement as agenda number one mr whose are the spawn thank you for your arguments this morning your excuse


straightforward reading of the dia in this case we would ask the court to reverse the judgment a lot of if there's no further question than there are any questions counsel thank you


the trial judge found the couple had been in effect after the judge became aware of everything to transpire we don't see many cases where the


category where it is understood without any analysis that they are crimes involving those would include include fraud as the same court explain in jordan they would include rape


the most larry of transactions often cost millions of dollars i ask the court to think of c p s and the vendor who supplies that district with food clearly that expenditure will be much much


higher than the expenditure involved here when about the university of illinois and the vendor who supplies them with office equipment again an expenditure much much higher than involved here but a very very


if this is the actual usage of the vehicle when the rational and the person coming from outside the city using the car to drive only in the city not be subject to tax what's the rationale for the being a


and sponsoring and also in passing this act overwhelming they discussed the great impact this would have on rock island county on the state of illinois so they did in fact


eye and we know that multiple other bystanders were progress so the legislatures decision it makes sense from probably a policy perspective the defense proposed rule would not benefit anyone except for armed robbers who are able to commit a crime


requires an examination of the firearm that obviously occurred in this case the state first or prawn eye witness testimony the defendant used a firearm under this court's recent decision in people the right as well as a long list of other cases that's a not just eyewitness


weekends continues to be operating as a school on weekends continues to be operating as a school over the over a regular summer break so operation being operational part of what it means is it


application process the entire act asset purchase agreement and all of those terms was provided to the board these are not agreements or events that are happening as an end run around anyone the best


for that is the alternative intolerable saying the only way you can protect the sixth amendment right is to trade the confidence of your client intentionally undermine the to undermine the attorney client relationship reach that trust


are the efforts of our colleagues at all i mean is that actually did that your problem of the research with us but but in to give credit where credit is due they performed that research and went back to


justice freiman if he's asked a couple times what difference does it make you know what difference should it make to the point is well it's the difference between recovery and in a new lease europe and you know recovery is it's our


unexpected windfall based on a mutual mistake here the people dismissed eight felony firearm us and agreed to a twenty four month probation term in exchange for the defendant leading guilty to a single class for


can't be preserved by something that comes after that this is a case of first impression it's not affected or influenced by those cases in which was factional claims


and it said it will be observed that the above statute does not express the provide the bond of the for the benefit of third persons but went on to say that the weight of authority and the better reasoning is to the contrary one of the conditions of the bank


single clearly established approach that the federal circuits are taking to try to assess whether the lesser included offense and greater have been premised on


attack but and again i don't want to compare it to you know the shootings of the school but it this is it was on a much lower level it is that that that was essentially what the what happened there on that day


drop of ink out of that glass of milk he admitted i had sex with a thirteen year old not just once but over a period of months that's why it's not simply just prejudice and profound city it's loring that you're right to decide guilt


knew it but it provides for the willfully doesn't hole over i'm with you i find i find some of these issues very interesting but at the end of the day the question is whether this we saw pictures entitle to qualified immunity clearly established right that's at issue


of good faith i'm not part of mr martini but i think the point that we're trying to get from you is it was circumstance the probable cause affidavit included an assessment about whether there is a reasonable place to stop


either rip about the car or tell them that you no pushover let you drive that would be you know a very very high standard of the ordinary case however if you look to what if you define the ordinary case as


failure to comply with the discovery rules it was no look poor judgment on pat part of the court there was no no order that was inappropriate the court said look you want to present this evidence as to specific


strange but that's the structure in terms of the code it says you have to file within ninety days a challenge to the f b i office then if you go through the whole structure of it you can then


your recitation of the bankruptcy courts finding well i certainly appreciate several things you said i think there there were she did say a bit more and i will acknowledge she did not specifically reference this particular appellant when she did say to her remember


rest that defines settlement services it's also consistent with as i said rest as consumer purpose because as a practical matter it's what the tub's from the standpoint of the consumers what they were paying for the


thank you you just time i think thank you


court knows it was an eight seventy one threat against the present case the court was very concerned obviously about the destruction of government function and i think actually said in its opinion this would


mean i've had some difficulty with this complaint because it to me it seems like there there may be two tracks or two tracks of allegations one of varying that there is a


to do what happens here that would result in a finding that they deserve training it would have to be a consideration of whether the judge improperly decided is motion for guardian ad litum


to that they had contracted for they knew nothing about that whatsoever and the distinction with melrose hotel is fundamental and salient in melrose the court found that


have to be explicitly raised this is really the burden shifting regime that a trial judge ought to be applying this time they have to but it is the taxpayers burden to show that they've met all of the


first is what was the intention structure of nine thirty two is is and nine thirty four was it the in intent she create a very loose standard here or a looser standard than an eight seventy one in nine eleven or instead


if you win a battle here you sounds like you so when end up losing the war am i ok or is the how the hell are going to do the judge when if you return it back to them with the understanding with the instruction that they at least


to be much better she claims she did much better after that she is i believe today a senior in high school yes yes and so and the other although he's given support in not just financial support but but


i understand right i understand you to be saying it doesn't matter how the money comes in as to those shares because he got it in a wrongful way he's got to give a for profit from it and there's there doesn't have to be any


at least the government would say that yeah that's what they'd say and then does it really come automatically is your point saying no it has it also has to comply with the the constitutional restraints that exist either from the tenth


vast majority of drugs it's all about money but to twenty nine doesn't require proof that the chemical weapon moved interstate commerce but nor does nor does the drug control act in there and indeed the race case you're talking about marijuana that


telemetry services were experimental and unproven services and that that's the basis for that is so it wasn't a statement that sigma made cardio and that was bad guys talked about the services cells which were part of the


fact that there is receivership going on at the same time liquidation that really that really shouldn't be such a big deal it's just two different systems working somewhat differently but as long as the liquidation is going on it's a collective proceeding


a bunch of money that they have to pay but is there anything preventing the state left with the district court decision aside from is a really preventing the state from asking the agent with whom he has a contract to provide it with information as to the


that the the ten k process was kind of engineered by the carpenters union and a contractor that had a longstanding relationship with by technically not


it's all over the over the place with regard to this in support as well as the findings that the board made in the section ten k determination urged that again the district court's decision in what the


in but will go back to your client and your client interacting with that and suggesting that let's have a credit arrangement if she said look don't call me there would have been no deal crack if i don't know that you're on it but that's what's so important because it


when you these people were well aware that their involvement went far beyond carlisle where the prosecution was taking place for sales that took place within cumberland county they were well aware that it went far beyond that it went beyond the bounds of the


where i can go for a little bit further on the any and all situations let me give an example if i might forgive an example and give one away but suppose you go to a diner and there's a fixed price me and on it it says you may choose any dessert on the menu


and part of the benefit to which they were entitled to the coal that didn't exist before two thousand and eight when it was added to the pension plan based upon williams and other of us a law that became part of the accrued benefit the benefits we are now told they received they


have to say don't you have to have us believe that there were no defenses you know having to succeed because then the injury flowed directly from the filing of the rico complaints and there was nothing


somebody told me there's a policy your position is that that creates a factual issue as to whether or not there's a policy from a no purposes yes your honor rule it's not it's not simply that


i'm sorry i think what you just said is hard to reconcile with our decision and in re grand jury from zero six because didn't didn't we say in that case that if the client intends to gain meaningful information that the client may


five what we end up with is really that whether the attorney provides advice suggesting go commit a crime whether the attorney provides advice do not go commit a crime or whether the attorney's advice is neutral as it was with a


there are instances in which the client will not use the advice in furtherance there are instances in which the client doesn't need the advice because the client's got information from other sources in making a determination as to whether to commit the


a strict liability in negligence unfair competition like fraud is an intentional toward every person as under do not to commit intentional tort so there's some tension and then you've got our case in gleason from two thousand and one in


wholesale target all these folks tried to cripple your compatible i having no one to serve its customers how do i address that and the court said i'm addressing by entering this injunction so that stryker could rebuild this sales force and repair its


the docket control that went with a close up certainly your honor it's again it's very straightforward the case that was filed was an addition of a nation case under federal law is a pretty court has said the other case this


shall there be any distribution from the escrow account in advance of either one agreement of all of the selling debtors or to in the case where the selling debtors fail to reach agreement the terminations by the relevant dispute resolvers under the


was not he was not moved by your position your are the bankruptcy court appeared to believe that this was not a force of arbitration clause because we would have to come back with the procedures to be


not we now know there was a fourth amendment violation so i have now moved on if we're talking about good faith i have moved on from the fact of a violation to the question of application of the exclusionary rule and what the supreme court has been trying to teach us repeatedly in recent


this structure where is the specific point at which they say no women it's well it's from our standpoint it's with the individual


relationship is that a handful in one thousand a year miss covington would be assigned to hamilton and some other schools she had the right to turn it turn those assignments down or not turn him down and show up when she showed up she would referee again


we intentionally asked for miss covington said not be assigned to our games it's not clear that that we did anything discriminatorily other than that we discriminated and on the face of the complaint you didn't hire you didn't


the district court dismissed the name plaintiffs claims with prejudice the class claims without prejudice so what we have here is an attempt by the class representatives cooperated together to move the venue from


potential for malpractise suits many years down the line and create all sorts of mischief with the insurance carriers who cover these lawyers and it would be expensive for the lawyers to defend these lawsuits many years down the line after this is memories of faded documents are


potential of being sued so i don't think that's going to change i think that the the fact is that attorneys jump at these opportunities they are appointed on a routine basis in california to represent children in these cases and it will not have a negative impact any


relate to the march two thousand transaction and i think the important part of that transaction it was a transaction where at home was on the one hand and the controlling shareholders us contacts and the kids here on the other and it was one


he obviously hadn't played so if you interpret it just as playing the way it actually ended up being interpreted off so he doesn't apply but if you interpret coaching didn't have it either so if that's going to be a fact unless you're going to throw out and say that you can't consider that at all that's going to be a factor


the affirmative action office at several different stages looked at what was being done they do an independent audit of the search at that two or three different stages during the process and everything they said this is ok go forward


did right up to and including trying to do were you able to demonstrate to the district court how many of those were documents you had not seen before the ones that i had not seen before that were actually introduced by dad the vast bulk of those


and this was specifically in reference to the criminal document there may have been quote another lawyer represent him in the in the criminal matter but these are matters often pertaining to the wrong status knowledge testimony matters that they would be expected to


so what do they do then these ten the same form letter to sacramento county again apparently by regular mail nothing changed nothing you know you know we've got to get going on this case we're already past the


was already in prison and so under three zero five six he cannot return him to prison and that's very clear after in re law in one nine hundred seventy three supreme court decision of the california supreme court so that's the difference


that were we to rule discovery is proper isn't the same thing or doesn't require us to find the same thing as we would assume mean that the notes were favorable and therefore a brady violation and in fact are essentially what


administration told ms wilson that by signing this application if you own property or not using it there's the potential that


animosity floating in the air between the president of the sales manager for some time with nothing ever stated mr serious with the president the same person who had promoted him and given him pay raises it's yes the president is the person you


counsel when they obtained the consent to get to search the obtaining of the search is not a testimonial circumstance and even if this court even if one were to examine this from


point was made forcefully in a decision delivered in august the concurring opinion by justice marino quote unlike first degree felony murder which is codified in section one eighty nine the second degree felony murder


if you talk about the exhibit a properties exhibit b property in exhibit c probably by itself in a vacuum you can create all kinds of of macha nations but you've got to take a look at what happened in this planet development in much like in the


raised below and that's the connected and cumulative impacts tests i think we clearly said on our briefs that the granting of the pier is not connected to any hypothetical upland


and in any event it's not accurate it was not dispositive their claims that just simply limited their claims to the administrative record and that we feel is perfectly justifiable so therefore we're just court to affirm the district court's ruling


hospital rounds the only thing she couldn't do was catheterized her patients now a lot of patients that come to a cardiologist never need catheterization i think it's important to understand that she doesn't have a shingle out front of her office that


how could that not be right how could that not be right and the point i would like to make in the couple minutes i have left is an argument that we put in the brief but i think deserves more emphasis the focus of punitive


may very well be dispositive once you get all the facts and can determine that based upon the facts i don't see them in any way to be distinguishable fazio was they went that far they went and said there are enough facts here to determine that and it's


yet to be questioned and the only other potential black sure was properly dismissed for cause because he failed as well as far and as far as castle could see and when i say counsel i mean defense counsel he couldn't


finally i'd like to cite brands which holds that quote even in cases where the government may be correct that a particular incident is not conclusively established bias where the record does not show in enough detail what happened it is impossible to know what the effect was without a


premiums with the monthly reports that were set forth in this contract between the parties and also with regard to waiver


receipts right and it required some calculations correct and that's what's referred to it's part and parcel of the premium is that i don't think so because tell


when it is a course of conduct statute and the cases that we quoted you as it's it covers generic testimony of abuse from young victims and it does not put on a realistic precision demands on a child witnesses and that's built


and those are very strong cases for crediting is true and remaining for payment of benefit what are you asking us to do and why i am asking you to find it improperly relied upon dr geary's report because there was a language


difficult question for me and for ms hamilton is their complete reversal that the government's taken on appeal and if i could draw the court's attention to the extremes to record pages ninety one through ninety five those only


could enter into that sort of should enter into that cell when that door was mistakenly opened before he was able to close it two inmates did come out and start running down the tier there is no evidence that officer kelly was able to see into that cell


story and the appellant argues that they're entitled to an inference from that evidence that the police officers lied now they that in and of itself


there was no government investigation audit report or hearing it's unlike the case in lockheed or the case in schumer where the documents that were being sought by florida were dca


totals didn't go to sell or that there was no you know nothing in the corporate records or bank accounts that have been reviewed to show he ever actually received that money and most is maybe monies that were not properly accounted for may not have been properly seated where they should have been perhaps


which did govern her employment is more general under that order it simply says you have to meet these three threshold requirements you have to have primarily intellectual work you have to engage an independent judgment


that the argument is there but when you have as as counsel in a trial level court when you have a case authority strongly supporting your position and at the time no case with already supporting what is what the merck


because the very first level for more responses to mr will these grievances states that the correctional institution actually personally interviewed mr foley and so we don't think that it would be plausible to say that mr willie wasn't


energy to lease to courts have reviewed decisions and expressed no problem with that i think whoa specifically in my opinion how specifically affirm there were a nominal damages class members this court reviewed wagner and noted the fact


some money to the city to the point and so the question of how you calculate that amount has to be consistent with carrie and don't we have to start with what is the purpose of


wearing a color belt because he was not a gang member but the point is is that in order to give the entire picture of this transaction so you have to get inside mr alvarez mind that self defense what did he reasonably believe what are the appearances that he can rely


our client being disadvantaged by that on appeal because the very confusion the plaintiff created is now threatening to cause a problem for us when in fact the issues you are really very simple there are two separate business units


they got what they wanted we were necessary party plaintiffs represented by a class of plaintiffs so what what what the court would be saying otherwise


judge granted her rule twenty nine motion and dismissed her from the conspiracy count and i'm going at the third issue i'm going to argue is the court's refusal to instruct the jury that no special weight should be given to the certificates


york component in order to protect the public and to fill its deterrence purpose and that's what's happening here and why it's part of the cause of action and why it was could not be severed from the law enforcement action under fourteen


second full paragraph it says the second alternative of the consumer was to purchase one lexmark cartridge price thirty dollars less than the regular card for its subject to the condition that the customer would return the empty cartridge only to lexmark


he's talking about and i think it's at least if it's not perfectly clear at least another interpretation is appropriate that what he's talking about is a location on the barge pole a single location


passenger is going to do the driving makes the driver guilty of whatever the passenger did and so it seems to me that on the theory that the case was argued it's a first degree murder and then at the claim it's a first degree


young exception apply because he simply has not shown any connection between the state defendants and the operation of the in ancient status and the attorney general in indiana primary role is to offer


the only evidence in this record is that the marion county clerk does not in my training and policy her staff may not refuse to accept a name change petition from anyone based on the clerk's staff views as to whether they


is thirty seven years before the supreme court case in johnson so what about the career fender decision in united states against


to we filed a request a simple request for clerks default under rule fifty five a which the court never ruled upon for about four months our money our request was pending before the core and wrote


the default judgment will come back into play and the judge will have to rule on it she didn't probably rule one way or the other right right but if i just want to said so you have a chance to renew your motion for default if this case goes back right your honor and


indiana and you know i've run for congress on disability platform twice i didn't win but that was my platform i've started a party called disability party which you know i have a lot of


several occasions that day three three times that in fact so what actually we think happened here is either kyle kraus checked the warehouse and he saw the danger and left it alone or cross checked the warehouse


my client did not file her claim because of bleeding discomfort or pain that she was receiving from the i u d my client filed her claim because she the only reason she filed was because she knew that hysterectomy to get it


basically first by going to the district court whether it's a magistrate judge the district judge doesn't matter and obtaining an order compelling the just the discovery in question because sometimes requests


to report and the right time and place i'm confused i thought they said i thought they said they were going to investigate it that that was after her efforts to to to file the report again but the first time they were willing to take


that the p c c wanted to kill him that they beat him that they shot him and in the mother's affidavit all it really shows is that the p c c continues to target his family in brazil and wishes to target him in


court cases most of these there is nothing that is literally irreparable nobody is bound and gagged in these cases hamilton the seminole case is particularly interesting because the things that the


against the united states


about going back in time not g p s location historical cell site records all you can get from that is what power that phone was using when it either made a call or received a call pinging is different that's a separate standard that's not


judge is your brooks opening question if this is really just nationalizing fannie and freddie and you have been and your clients have been compensated there's a forum for those kinds of claims but putting that to one side i was overwhelmed


what sense do you think you're running a conservatorship whether reference to solve and see i believe you are means that it stays technically solvent over zero so that now be placed into receivership under the


first of all the my poem is argued that in this case the bankruptcy has been used as a weapon or the debtor was allowed to dissipate assets and ninety eight thousand dollars worth of assets and therefore the non debtor spouse


cases that they cannot reasonably rely on the claimants ability to perform such basic daily activities expression when they need help performing those activities when those activities are punctuated with rest because in a


court to do is turn the standard review on the current standard of the review which is deferential on its head right to escalate the duty of articulation to such a standard that it would it would completely


johnson method is an interesting possibility that and he never says anything like but on promising because i've been using little cells and sperm cells are more fragile or anything like that no that's exactly right and


for in the bail decision that each judge makes in each individual case yes your honor but there's some case law to support the theory that the risk that an individual will jump bail is greater when that individual is utilizing the ten


protective sweep to see if there are people there and then they have a canine call to the whole house before they search so at that point they should have said this basement doesn't match up nothing mattes matches up and they you know they also knew that you know they they were asking these


may please the court counsel cynthia freberg on behalf of the f a and commissioner of social security this case involves a very thorough and detailed l j is decision where the l j consider and discussed the record


it's confused with the subsequent relationship yeah well the way the relationship went down is the parties talked about having a relationship coral said career builder would get full on or ship of the


rules never and we also contend that the case was clear enough for not only the court to discern what we were saying but also that what the court was really examine


agreement and you look at the recitals within that agreement and so if you look at paragraph a of the escrowed raman it talks about what happens that we had the settlement agreement that was between the three parties highpoint m rat and ws


the series ends and so then when no further shipments when the shipment arriving with defective the next obligation was for emerick to deposit funds into the escrow account to trigger the obligation to send the third shipment well


good morning honors may place the quiet my name is jonathan cohn i got here on behalf of the united states in these consolidated appeal so i'm happy to answer any of your questions of course but i would prefer to focus on the question of remedy and i think remedy is the surest ground


not get it right and say this is a question that needs to be determined by a jury as opposed to us because i don't believe that the lower court used


question the legal question is how objectively officers respond to what they saw whether it's objectively reasonable that's the question under graham against connor whether reasonable


because there is some sort of overlapping issue with the ricker feldman doctrine that this somehow means they sufficiently raised it in their opening brief but that's plainly not the case if you look at their opening brief the word the term reza judicata only appears


a very good morning to everyone the first case on today's call is what you're against anderson mr us island


see that had it been unlawful employment action you would have had to go through conciliation you would have had to have either an individual charge or commissioner charge you would have had to go through all the seven zero six absolutely are we've been very very consistent so it's only some seven


consent decree in the e e o c did and things broke down that point i suppose but i don't know why that's not a process of negotiations slash trying to you think of the meaning the dictionary meaning of conciliation means to resolve it by


apply federal common law and hope that the justices accept that we're using the reserve power in cayman or try to figure out what state law governs and to what extent it may or may not


points and even assumed that all of the facts that were alleged by the union were all prove it and essentially what the court determined based upon all that beneficial


feel loud but we haven't really questioned the availability of discovery here we've asked the court to consider his social security disability insurance decision which came after the final decision of the administrator we believe that that is


court to address that here i know that it will overturn precedent but we think that the precedent is we think that that's appropriate and we think the second circuit has it right here he drank it ever offer an alternative to


waivers are valid but whether the waivers fail it is a question on the merits are you saying that any lawsuit based on a waiver of bringing later litigation is not


to enforce a waiver by an employee as a condition of receiving severance benefits from us i know your honor i don't have any such thought i would say that all cases are privileges do you have any saying that any particular such case


from the court this justice thomas articulated each retaliatory adverse employment decision i repeat decision constitutes a separate actionable unlawful employment practice in this


is we do work we spend money we're getting ready for trial and we have fifty thousand dollars in time the defendants offer fifteen thousand dollars to settle everything including feeding the prices i want to settle and we


a ten minute recess the court will be in recess for ten minutes


have never heard of a search warrant where you can come in and say i'm getting a search warrant and it's and they go to the judge and say don't issue the warrant and they can contest that i would also point out the plaintiff makes a big deal in their brief about all the secrecy supposedly


function of the jury the key legal issue on this appeal is whether the trial court of five the correct legal standard to the question of whether or not a mystery still smells and dr dowdy opinions were


i'm out which the opponents their position is that that was not properly or adequately determined in the district court the mr


poem hypothesized that there is an absolute and total block of access your part couldn't reach the website without a violated any of your client's rights


mean i have sometimes you have to brief things and there are facts specific defenses i'm sure people who regularly represent employment discrimination defendants also feel that they're being a bit repetitive but you


if it was objectively reasonable for the officers to secure the car and the personal effects of the person they had under arrest that subjective least of all to keep the passenger there in order to control the scene well it's his request to leave are


reverse mr lott's conviction turning out of the constructive amendment specifically the construct of amendment we have to look at four points because of course objection was not made at the truck court we need to satisfy plain error st was there an air here when factors at


and that's conceded in the government's opposition and in addition to the government's opposition that's not the only place we see in the reckless indifference pronk we also see it for example at page one thousand one hundred and sixty four of the appendix the count thirty eight once again ladies and gentlemen all the evidence points to


my name is eric petrie and i represent james penny well a wisconsin citizen who was in prison for a dui and who then went blind while in the care of wisconsin corrections system on appeal today are two arguments first for the


referenced in the charging as individual and that as the district court held he did not come clean about all of those individuals the defendant stated he got no heroin from any supplier besides the codefendant


because of that dispatch just wasn't wasn't something that was available and the other positions we just were limited in what there was her hand injury was very very severe and it greatly limited her ability to function


quote from lexington holmes was quote women architect hughes closely to existing convention the architects original contribution is slight in his copy of his copyright is thin so that only very close copying could take


putative class action was withdrawn the claims were dismissed by the time they asked for fees and to give it a private contractual agreement again out of court there were no there was no class action in that still remained so it's


hard to say how the class action device was leveraged in a case where the class action was fully withdrawn and dismissed which which again to go back to the one point we think the court was correct in denying intervention it's reasoning was very sound but


in his case what's important about that initial finish agreement that was reached between the parties is that it did not it was silent as to motions and waivers on appeal so in reliance on the agreement that his


thrust really of the the clutching a circumstance is nine one one caller says the gun is in the pocket he's approaching the defendant and the defendant is trying to


subject any questions that you may have thank you thank you


well there are two issues there one i agree with you that there is a real tension in the cases and even even the n c case that i was the subject of the twenty eight jail letter says you can do not traffic things but rebekah's


good morning i believe that we have judge sykes on the telephone is that right thanks yes good morning thank you excellent all right well we have one case for argument


like we saw on the epping in missouri case where you put the vinyl on and and you might change it once a month from eat mcdonald's to the burger king to some political sign that's not what we have anymore so what the city


sixteen months to go to be able to exercise them it is a critical issue and so had the court apply the right standard and said well gee these are presumptively unconstitutional it was incumbent on the city to then come in and say wait a minute i


reasons why it should be considered because there's the risk of a undue windfall to the defendant of having his conviction overturned so that's the policy reason to consider the child evidence


leaping up side sea somehow or another a person has to both get up to this five foot platform and get back down again and they're not supposed to do their work not to stand on the platform and leap down five


job and part of his job involves climbing up there every eight hours to replace those fluids that have been depleted and with no ladder provided he had to figure out a way as mr tourist says climbing would be the only way to me i believe


with the main with the main manufacturer because we weren't in the original producing and marketing chain because we purchased this item use we should be out the the appellant will argue that well we have cases that


for leave to file that relevant piece that's not necessary because now we've pulled it from the docket but in the future you need to include that information thank you apologize most


one issue for review which was whether the court erred in finding that this case constituted a covered class action she did not present as an issue whether the dismissal should have been with prejudice frankly until page eight of her reply brief did you


counsel should be given the opportunity to join more named plaintiffs plaintiffs who she could represent in a class of fewer than fifty members so even now she's suggesting that this court convert the


enrollee there is an entire administrative process that's available through the appeals process and then through state court external review i'm sorry state law external review so there are absolutely one hundred percent remedies that are available that could be


complaint does request any monetary benefits the proper remedy would have been to strike those specific requests for relief not to dismiss the complaint as a whole what kamaka


thank you very much for the opportunity to show you why a mistake was made in this case are going to be short even shorter than the short present patient i had planned this


has historical knowledge even for that prong the standard is whether he wanted to impose the district court that should know or should and should remember stander


including date time it's outer and if you want to call those attributes collectively the statutory floor ok you've had you have an agency that is that is implementing it albeit for a different purpose


well i don't know if they had filed it or in there was some way to check it may have prevented it except the testimony was the judge was was the state court judge she did not in fiction get a particular procedure of


there was there was some testimony about the process and and the periodic updating of the individuals case by case by case i don't think there's any anything in the record that says that


the criminal history overstatement argument when it went back to clarify that that prior conviction it was not a traffic jam but the court really never went back and corrected the record with respect to


sponsible for prosecuting mr williams further as this court it's only held in united states against that would that conceded violation of the statute is not harmless and requires remit for how much the that would case should we


because they argue that it cannot be unreasonably dangerous if the the normal consumer if especially in this case understood the risk so it does overlap design defect a little bit but our mice far is what dr bailes knew that


a different thing the fire protection district in the case is presently in front of us is not doing the monitoring it's not charging people anything the fire protection district has entered into


the reason that was offered was to point out to the court that even though the court had dismissed the case with prejudice we filed a motion to reconsider pointing


notes did not indicate the officers ever visited the building nd floor much less stop at miller's apartment until after brett's he left nuts when mertz stopped by militia partment to drop off he to his storage locker do we have to we know that if people were


network could bear on this case no because we have a right also you can say no when you've already told me you don't have any clue what it is your honor said that it had to do with the validity


only the insurance policy that provides the highest insurance will ply except in the last paragraph of condition it is very important because the last paragraph says that if a policy of insurance is acting as an access policy a pure access


and both a motion to reopen and what you consider are still pending i was advised what i what i had already known that the motion reconsider was received on september seventh two thousand and eighteen and the motion to reopen was received on october thirty first two


damage after july th twelve he turned out as i mentioned established any of the remaining elements that would entitle him to have a claim make out of claims against principal for tortious interference with prospective


would have been made at swimwear his principal place of business group in the beach sale somewhere in the united states or predicate to the plaintiff's claims here but sales into illinois are


through august seventh two thousand and eighteen when he was sentenced that was the time time range that he was actually given credit for six hundred and forty eight days approximately he was given credit and the reason it started on october


on class action settlements accept if it's a case by a uniform party people say the prisoners in the jail are complaining that the he does turned down too low otherwise every case about any kind of


is bound to follow binding follow binding supreme court precedent we said of the key yes case on that as well as israel ones a supreme court decision once the seventh circuit city i think that it's very clear on this and it may not be the way that things have been done it


in du page county found that the evidence clearly established that she was insane at the time of the killing by clear and convincing evidence and therefore she could not properly have formed the intent


fourth case for this morning is united states against rodrigues


that i guess we roll through several of them until nine hundred ninety seven when somebody gets out then things sit around for for four years and then he asks for a copy of the record the states's state public defender says


irony here in asking for a reduction in the more time spent on for a relatively minor amount of time spent given the nature of the defendant's real conduct as part of the


with the record at amusing the authentic sites here at eight three to eight four as well as a six the district court quite clearly said both that hearsay may be considered in the basis of determining probable cause


articulated her view of the evidence to apprise it of her reasoning to permit the court to conduct meaningful review and as reflected in our brief our position is that the answer is yes that the court can tell what the ale jay thought


then he could say look i you know i see this is a debate you know as i look at defendants who come before me i think the general deterrence does play a role i see people who come and say i know this guy got ten years on a gun case so i you know wanted to abstain from that


law in the state courts are telling us there is no error well that's what the state courts are saying but i don't believe in a matter of state law why is that not conclusive here well i don't because of the federal


board's decision is how they address that issue in that particular case i believe they hadn't addressed that in the initial decision in a summary dismissal and later with a motion to reconsider sort of tying into the third issue they dismissed


drivers under the truth in leasing regulations


would come under this where you have the owner operator but owners are paying a bank usually for two three hundred thousand dollars truck and so they got that to pay and then become back into this