back to the district court's decision not to look at the patents differently i would submit that for example that united seven patent is really directed somewhat different subject matter and shouldn't have been considered you know part and parcel with the nine six report and i think the nine six three and some of the claims of


of perhaps perhaps not but we of course don't know for sure what happened or what motivated the court and secure access because it's a it is it's a summary munching where order without a reasoned explanation given by the court but i think that a


of the patient's teeth that might or might not be reflected in the final treatment but is absolutely going to be reflected in how you get there because the size and shape of the patient's teeth affect when the teeth are going to collide and the collision of the teeth is the primary consideration that causes you to


created created the problem with it is creating a problem it is the government's internal policy in memory and that is what they are relying on to say we must go back now


remedy right but they we kept trying to bring things up and the court cut us off without being able to be heard in these various hearings just entered orders that change the dates in


is whether or not their rituals and i supposed all of this started thanksgiving and new england and then i mean there wasn't a tantalus where i come from and in the beginning of these celebrations i don't think i don't think the


properly to allow those communications through that but i don't understand how that the very disclosure in the spec that we just discussed doesn't cut against the proposed construction that you have given for adding a program


see commercial success


entire record and that's one thing that seadrill would have this court focus on just the facts that were found by the board as supporting non obviousness but in a substantial review substantial review for substantial


meters of the seabed then you could reach the seabed arguments about things like air gaps there's no air gaps in the claims council said you have to look at the claim as a whole the invasion as a whole well eventually the hole is


barges you needed because you were four hundred thousand dollars in debt in arrears to them and or they didn't have confidence in your abilities so while there may have been some service sub contractors with cars who are willing to work with you because they


doesn't affect the performance of the aircraft was wrongfully turned it's the same concept just because they didn't didn't go in one particular direction doesn't mean they didn't work as a system and the government engineers it needed that


clothing and fitness services opposer also uses the trademark on a variety of gym equipment yet how in the world do i not read that as an assertion that this trademark they're talking about in this paragraph which is just not the composite mark the common law


received the proposed remove all this is going to get held on appeal and granted he he did deny saying those words at hearing but he also testified he could remember what he said the report are well not to die and that


specification and specifically the specification with reference to the figures the meat of the specification where this where the invention where the inventive


that and why doesn't that provide substantial evidence support the board's finding the board's finding regarding lexical analysis is based upon the and by the way the board's finding cites to


to the process and it and it was a became an automated process for for adjusting the temperatures and the for the for the production of vulcanized rubber so that


through the specific terms of the settlement agreement they're usually talking about the numbers for that's correct but a guarantee has a number attached to it it's a financial obligation it's not a it's not a timing obligation or something that's that's more qualitative a financial


deficiency or weakness was attributable to something that had been clearly stated in the our peter solicitation and that's just completely inconsistent not only with the exact language of the federal acquisition regulations but also decades of case


you can't consider it anywhere else two does not go that far but we see that other courts have the second sort of circuit has gone that far the fifth circuit has gone that far the d c circuit has got that works you're asking us to say that that it doesn't matter how bad the government's


correlation thing here you kind of look at you go like this you look back and forth and you know it's like you know american bandstand you know i give it a seventy so that's where the big difference here is and i think what what's very important in this case is that we have to


and do not use a motor vehicle until six do not drive until six hours after that is that instructing someone to drive the six hour moment well that obviously there's a fact question of whether that instruction would inevitably causing users to infringe but to the extent that


just regard publication evidence based on a nebulous concept of what material is being cut when they said it was buildings which ariel by a team of disinterested scientists this interested scientists couldn't cut the material when the board can do that in order doesn't have a


exactly what it would have been paid for had it got the contract in the first place and so whether or not it was being paid a sort of in the interim under the under a preexisting conjure think is just legally around it's not relevant to the question of the relief that level three could


particular part of the study it did not in any way affect the table i'm sorry the figure seven data which goes to the ph drop within two minutes and the logical conclusion i remember this is a jame all motion the verdict


application programmer that interacts with a logical broadcast channel which overlays an underlying network that's an awful lot us rupture you're trying to suck into a client a logical broadcast channel which overlays an


but the basic settlement agreement seems to say five or through the annuity arrangement because that's exactly what happened in massey in other words the government delegated its obligation it didn't eliminate its obligation it delegated its obligation


in other words the whole point was that that chance and all files and the hope and that the president mentioned and a particular file to be executed right in the reason that they focused on that file to be executed


violated had been specifically passed for your benefit and why there's a bunch of support for that in the legislative history which are support specifically because i think this is a vip it would be a very unusual decision for us


court j well order at pages age ten and eleven the district court refers to some protocol that she says that the district court said night have dictated as external factors the selection an arrangement of commands


for example in a non computer context and ideas i method for preventing a chair from tipping over when i think that that is an idea it's not it's too broad it's


point to that we should look assuming again that we found that yes they are is the real part in interest what beyond the net worth we quire mintz with regard to that the party do we look at partner with to go to the partnership to


would be in any tougher case you bring the suit on behalf of the cover partnership the whole point of the case was to determine whether the i r s adjustments to be are b s artist tax returns were appropriate or not it was a tax case all about b s ours partnership


opinion said that there's a modification in that information or the dado being used by the relevant cable is of a modification and that just gets back to my earlier point that merely providing


if you're going to sue or write your own you have exclusive original jurisdiction in the federal district court that is what this circuit has said that is the prevailing law ever addressed it as an actual issue or is that just been a statement in passing as


black horse resources payments and as a result he did not really disclose anything until the april two thousand and twelve deposition and at that point he still did not disclose the full scope of what he's been doing in two hundred two thousand and eleven and with


kazan and that really caused her a lot of thanks she also they had only one lunch period for the school and so there was no way to segregate people during the lunch period they couldn't say he goes to the first one and she goes to the


know you're what you're talking about those are the consent issues and this court's opinion largely was conditioned on this consent issue in that in that regard the district court got it completely wrong the girl was


serious problems a serious problem in sexual assaults on school campuses at the high school level top in a way more often than anybody wants to admit and oftentimes i've been on this case on the side of the defending the person who's been accused


arrestee in custody and till an individualized bail hearing that's what the in that hearing they can impose monetary bail they can even impose monetary bail that a person can't afford there's nothing about our constitutional claims that suggest that a person can't


doesn't want to see crime increases want to see failures to appear increase she looked at all the data in front of her and yes she will be different data a trial she may make a different factual finding at trial but she looked at all of the data in front of her and she said there is no


if they make the right substantive findings and provide the right procedural safeguards they can detain any arrestee and they can set on affordable but let me ask you about section eight section eight as i'm paraphrasing but as i understand it


why or any remedy to contest those taxes in a court of law as a result most canada suffered substantial damages he was forced into a chapter eleven bankruptcy case and


reviewable by the courts and fortunately if we cut your honor trust me we would have done that and tried to get an injunction against collection in the meantime so we could not with respect to the i mean all our attorneys face


regularly in fact what we get quite often your honor are notices from borrowers that basically list every single requirement under section fifty eight six and saying that all of them were violated even ones even the one that


an emergency in their family and accidentally threw it away and therefore didn't cure and i guess i'm coming up with something that isn't the facts here well yes i think that's a perfect example and and it is a fact and question it has to be a fact question its totality


support your contention that under fifty four dollars d there could be a designation of multiple prevailing parties in the case and in this case in particular where they were talking about subsidiaries and related parties


off label this bulletin was never attached to the contract it was and nowhere in this agreement does it reference that specific document now in the end in the backward list training


fact witness that she was counsel for p p t negotiated the contract in our expert disclosures we didn't reserve the right to elicit expert testimony from any fact witnesses who had


the district court discusses did also practices this is what it says the parties do not define good oil flow practices and that set you don't know what the judge has done the judge's job to actually interpret it and then to apply it we have none of that in its opinion


listing it as an asset on other loan documents a medicare claim number for a specific false claim of a broken arm for example can't be used for anything other than that specific payment of that specific claim what about a mortgage long number


defended this restriction the i said i correctly correct myself the government also said there was but apparently a lie that the defendant told the police that said the st time i came into contact with victim number one he just wanted to buy a gaming controller i don't think that


montana's tells the investigators that he was discussing x box in call of duty with the victim and whether or not that's true i do think that admission shows that monson as is well aware that gaming consuls are used


contest that there was misappropriation of a trade secret to begin with were due to the extent the list was proven to be at your other it can be most appropriate itself so so you say there's a mismatch


and to which mr wind gust who is the expert testified to in his affidavit to this blending of the end come in the cost approaches which is at page eighty six dollars of the record under the c p a standards paragraph forty two


your honor i don't think that's the character characterization of the allegation complaint doesn't say that the father the sibling and the mother all said it was an accident instead of a deliberate physical abuse the the alligator the key allegation is it's the word intentionally is


appellate misplaces its reliance on the acquisition of goods were talking about from a third party and then passing those items to incentivize students to read now the schools that were part of the program for h i s


part of the two defendants in this case can you help us with understanding the procedure where of the citation was being what were the words held for pick up our health for delivery something something like that


that obviously doesn't count which is what the l j said well i would say not quite your honor that's an important question what does it mean to not apply the mechanically as you pointed out the regulations state that an l j has to consider whether to use the older age


saying is once you heard the vocational expert he was bound by it couldn't ignore it had to accept all of it and would not have been allowed to determine that she was fifty five as well and hale j can choose to ignore vocational expert


to work and support the family is resources that income exclude her from any of the disability benefits whatsoever not getting back to the stuff five problem here i think we've been a bit unclear there are two periods of


harness as a result a missed or teasers complaint mr harness took it upon himself to engage in an investigation with the district attorney's to lodz what we believe it has no factual basis which was a criminal complaint


chief this is something that but isn't the allegation that the chief the reason the chief is upset is because of the prosecution that sudden well yeah that was that's him mr ortiz's complaint because there was


can only be enforced by contempt and third is the equally well settled rule that contempt must be addressed by the court that issued the injunction out so let me ask you about mr c's bankruptcy i take it your client


that those emails did not say attorney it did not say law for he did not know that and he believed that it was an accounting for him so he probably did get a problem that you've got i think is that the


in his whatever was waiver request almost immediately upon the over determination of the overpayment determination that would happen in this case was he was represented to pay for his sister so she sent in a waiver request that time see she died in the interim he


think the again the integration cost tells us that all the parts of this contract are integral and they were telling peon or is saying that their obligation to be the handling carrier and that the


will and that's the question that has to override everything here is did does this contract show that being assessed on one hand and piano or on the other intended that their contract be turned what will and it does it does


cetera that that party who is has the right to distribute or whatever is seeking to say that the party with the larger bundle of rights didn't have the right to terminate them so this would be more analogous it was be in s


tekken this case we're talking about going to england to arbitrate claims under united states statutes or else talking about arbitrary claim for theft of trade secrets from an american company with servers based here in the united states a


enhanced penalties for certain drug trafficking crimes congress specifically quote require that certain prior convictions have become final notably congress did not include that are now to finality language in determining when section four of the three is applicable


say cases arising soley out of contract it says claims are causes of action arising solely out of contract party we need to parse better we need to parse better than the district court but i certainly


to whether that establishes probable cause the court still has to grapple with the question of qualified immunity which again was ms one hundred dollars burden to disprove and a burden which she simply neglected and officer smith


by the district attorney's office out there at the scene after the u turn how much of that was known while at the time that at the time of the scene you're out it was known that missile one hundred that may have gone a had a suspended driver's license i don't know the answer and i don't


so what about that what do we have in between the arrest and the indictment that would be additional evidence besides the officers affidavit the evidence that we know of that existed were the cars that were seized and the records that were seized relating to those cars and sales


like with tasering a lot of case in the fifth circuit a lot of times you're allowed one free taser but in this case there was a clear violation of the parents rights and they should have the right to bring that action against the social workers bearing


it is now and the parents are essentially asking the court to make new law and set new boundaries for substantive due process which is our case that said clutter and syringes don't give enough which


in this case illustrates the difference because there is state court litigation and two lawsuits one of them removed and remain but involving title their title issues and one could logically say we're going to


showing of our klein in truth the petitions that the court found constituted an informal claim lewd or a lot more information then one could divine from this official people


endeavor to save three minutes for rebuttal ok this california law contract case i think really divides into two parts which represent alternative grounds by which we asked the court to reverse the first is the district courts


limitations the district court warned about that when it said in the granting of the summary judgment you can raise your other grounds under two point two two point four two point six two point eight but be very careful


trouble we're talking about someone who has taken multiple trips to mexico and when you talk about it it's not like she's you know surfing in mexico or hiking in mexico or climbing mountains in mexico it's one thing to sit on an airplane you're talking to three people who sit on


reversible error because it improperly limits the jury's consideration to certain aspects of the work as opposed to the whole work which is what copyright asked them to do which is what the intrinsic test requires


dialogue for this play to the authors however as with any play this play is filled with dialogue that is how the action is related and developed and a lot of that dialogue came from the pen


at some point doesn't your time run out for that several things in response that your honor first we have taken several steps in an attempt to arbitrate this grievance and second the standard doesn't look at the amount of time and there's a good reason that courts haven't set a specific you know say three


letter she says the postal service has shown reckless disregard for my civil rights and i am fair for forced to resign that's that's notice of the claim she didn't use the you know


of any other state who has ruled the other way to hold that this excludes the right that that a right of privacy is limited solely to a pro a secrecy right as opposed to his seclusion right


of the partnership between switzer and access so so if even if there is a finding against knowledge as to access i don't think that should apply to florida where that wasn't something that that this


this this doesn't look like much more than the postcard denials we get from the california supreme court and he exclaims well i think you also have to look at what the court looked at before it reached that decision here mr i was all that was forward looking at the d r v program


briefing and exhibits and so the court examined a lot of evidence when it came to its decision the actual orders in it begins all this and furnace cases were actually shorter than this that


way beyond that because they make up the budget they make up the staffing they get when you say they make up the staffing i i i'm a little blurry on that note is that mean they select the people who are going to be on the staff or does that mean


area mortality rate you're going to reduce the canopy cover to such an extent that it will no longer be viable foraging habitat for spotted owl but by doing the more targeted selection the forest service is doing here they can


said as a matter of what was decided the tribe does consists of more than five members as opposed to it potentially exists of more than five members specific language which you're on of the language and me walk to


etc so there was and i don't think that the burleys ever disputed that these people existed they simply deny their legal status and that's what they continue to do today they do not deny the evidence in the record and if i could briefly you asked a question about is there


are asking that duty should be reminded for an issue of first impression with the trial court this is a simply a beginning request but i'm prepared to address today and will do so now for the court so i think that the real issue


there were payments made during this period and that and what they're talking about is the payments that were made pursuant to the pre two thousand and twelve asset based compensation arrangement which was entered into in two


different days may fifth and i just august the eighteenth the initial claim was for august eighteenth which involved one set of facts but what was talked about in the district court was the may fifth have been which of all the separate set of facts therefore there was no exhaustion and the


find that that was a violation of the fourteenth amendment the supreme court goes on to note that the fourteenth amendment does not transform every state law tore it into constitutional violation so if there was something wrong with the fact that my client's closed mr livingston's


was there no current relationship they had actually been adverse and were adverse at the time so so not only was there no reasonable pression of bias and there was no incentive on anyone's part and the law firm to


case isn't limited to people who bought my mix contracts for the purpose of hedging it's defined to include anybody who purchased nymex contracts during the relevant time period sinclair


same sort of factor scenario i think at its heart there is there are certainly that overlap which is mis reporting to the reporting services right there's no question about in the absence of that misreporting would you have


if you begin whenever you are people thank you i'm just checking with everyone here are make sure it please the court my name is jennifer jill bacon i'm a lawyer from kansas city i'm here


i mentioned earlier is the same paragraph seem to discuss injury and damages as if they were interchangeable and for purposes of class or for cation they're not normally interchangeable


to tie the conspiracy to the what you're measuring you don't satisfy rule twenty three b three and if dr bateman did you do anything to isolate conspiratorial conduct in your model no that's an s c r two thirty two harrison dwyer


of run its course it didn't run it did in the sense that the all the votes that were to be cast were cast they were never counted i grant you that but that's why i say i view the supreme court as just saying just setting aside the kinds


previous decision in the preliminary injunction from this case that would versus ryan decision no your honor anywhere in the country yes in the middle district of pennsylvania there was a decision in philadelphia inquirer versus wetzel which we discussed in our


a claim but there's a more fundamental fact about the previous iteration of this case in the wood litigation that is worth noting which is this court's decision and the supreme court's decision to vacate this court's decision happened


its purity and its stability that was represented in the wood to the supreme court in the wood and wood is what you're saying you know that's our argument now i think in the wood execution though to go to your other point it wasn't just that arizona did


to life and instead but what he meant all along was that that was the top end as as opposed to what the probation officer was recommending right another was the probation officer was


that is why they are binding on the plaintiffs here this isn't someone unusual case because the plaintiffs attached all of these agreements to their complaint and specifically alleged that they formed a valid contract in the district court noted why they did that they did that because


against facebook i love that question your honor because you think this the it's the existing state of internet privacy law is that your ordinary consumer is there's a legal fiction that they've read understood and agreed to all these privacy policies


sec was not allowed to say that he eliminated those causes those are questions that were were objected to it once and objections were sustained they continued to sustain objections throughout so is there any


but that's all that they can do from that point forward it has to go to a doctor if it doesn't go to a doctor then there is a problem in the system somewhere now what can an inmate do who


officer the original office of the sighting officer was proceeding rather relatively smoothly and citing the you know the individual mister stubbs was there but everything was calm


there any competing interests the first question is what but it's applied to california so the question is whether california has competing interests with these out of state players that have a district court characterized it well the governmental interest


performed and it makes common sense i mean one of the interests of every single state has in applying its wage laws within its own borders is the certainty can you imagine i can imagine outside the context of this litigation that these employers or


originally in the first certification procedures the district court said the survey was not ok it was a public they they were i refer to them as a pilot and then the main study right and i and one of the i think the biggest problem


that before you could even get there you're going to have to do the analysis are there other state laws that might have an interest right do those are those state laws different than the law that arizona and at the end of the day


that there's no reason to question her competency there's no reason to quit what she did at the time of the crime she may not have been medicated at that time she may not have been getting treatment she is now in jail receiving treatment and she's appearing in


i'm missing that would have signaled to him that he needed treatment at that point no and i think that that's the basis of basis of this argument on appeal is that based on the experience that mr johnson had of the time there


is that they will not have access to gender appropriate property i'm sorry i fail to answer that question yes the policy provides that inmates will be identified on a case by case basis so all inmates who have been identified as transgender and under the


in may take and if as having of gender dysphoria this is from the settlement agreement are not transferred to the institutions and therefore don't have access to property is that correct


eat outside the state and affect commerce and in that particular case the statute it is to dealt with a royalty that sellers of art would have to pay in transactions and the court


theory and your argument perhaps you didn't when you just made a new argument about it doesn't that take us right back to where we started so we're back to big bird closed circuit president even if we consider this argument


i didn't get a chance to come back to law of the case i want to make sure that the court has our position on that i know judge callahan you had questions about it a lot of the case depends on what exactly has been decided in a previous decision and the only argument that they made below was


total that was in the business plan that appears in the opening brief forty six and was supported by mr silverman's testimony regarding the computation damages refers to the amount of economic loss it also refers to the amount that's


directly country that's exactly right which is why section eleven said the law could change in one it does and that's why i go back to my first question if there were no section eleven then it seems to me you wouldn't have a good


in resolving this twenty two fifty five motion the district court correctly found that those third degree assault convictions did not qualify as predicate enhancements so now the question before us is as is about the oregon convictions that is correct


and that's it may be what the law requires but again requires that it's kind of simply well i don't agree the die is cast by the demand for the arbitration all the issues that i set forth the


jurisdiction of the arbitrators to continue i know you objected to the district courts remains of the arbitrators business or any place in this record where you went to the arbitrators and said wait a minute you don't have the power to


action and i think the answer to that is still just as clear as the sovereign immunity question this is not an intra tribal dispute because it is not like any of the other cases cited by mr kelly and his associates for the proposition that


very politely and it wasn't with any information to sloth anything for example if you look at the letter in july two thousand and twelve which is after this that you would have been told it's a very polite inquiry


whether you know it has to assess the propriety of any discipline ok so in terms of if the school can notify people and if we get past all of that that based on that then you have a hearing how how in your view does


at the school if there is a true threat they can now not based on this jury and they did and they took steps and we haven't contested that it was ok when they found that out he was already in custody that police had already found there's nothing here to arrest him for there's no


it was resolved on the motion with the affidavit that's correct the other side then did you have oral argument on this no your honor we asked for or you meant we asked for an evidentiary hearing that would have at


to allow monsanto to produce that it otherwise could not because it didn't have the capacity because they were essential for the national defense there's ample evidence in the record that the call these are p c b s they're for example their lack of solubility their resistance to changes in


well not much they did not show that and did not prove that alaska had any higher moving or any hired


be deceptive for purposes of the consumer protection act in they they also give you this leeway under washington law where the plaintiff or the aggrieved person would follow up did that happen here by


called legacy to ask if there was a problem so they just relied on the information they already had no your honor if if i if i may if i can go back in the records what show is yeah that is that for the first few there was almost


isolated you've got to be isolated from coworkers not just the public he needs to be isolated second in terms of distractions and activities in terms of being low stress and i pointed out in the brief and i'm upset


you will a disjunctive way to make a claim either way i understand that's your argument on the other hand if i'm not determining what claims st made means and i'm back to that's an ambiguity because i


and on the issues that are most relevant to this injunction it ruled in favor of the federal defendants specifically one of the oregon raised as a challenge to the biological opinion


court abused its discretion in finding a likelihood of irreparable harm and whether to be used its discretion in finding that increased voluntary spring spill up to the level allowed by state water quality standards would reduce that harm counsel for


the stay is lifted will be required to released the names of that point on that or has that happened yet it has not because of the what has happened as of as of now the implementing regulations have issued the local one seventeen requested


secondary party to in turn get that company to impose the union on the drivers as a condition of doing business that's the way a secondary campaign works what the ordinance does is give the teamsters or any other organization that attempts to use


the easterns own is currently in phase three the western zone where wolves retain federal endangered species act protection is still in phase one and additionally as the district court determined there was a risk that the eastern zone could revert back to phase


hasn't removed any wolves after this twenty fourteen decision and in fact oregon has gone ahead and done so independently under its program and under its authorities now if i might briefly address mr some some mr


lead you to believe through its briefing as to the effects on wolf populations again i want to point the court back to anderson view evans that explicitly dismisses this line of reasoning from a federal agency about just because more animals might come in to replace that population that there's


they have each of these three requirements and in fact the complete isn't even alleging that these three requirements are in there but they're really alleging is that there's not more and additional data that they think would be useful to


frustrated with her for taking leave but they sent her protesting because they thought she was impaired she was fired for testing positive that's what the judge said but that's not what the that's what the factual record showed she tested positive so far forgive me but yes to the stand a review which


an reasonable accommodation because she was asked to come to work as soon as possible that is not another reason what the law says is that an accommodation is reasonable if it allows the employee to keep working


was not denied any of her leave under the eff m l a in fact quite the contrary she was asked to take the leave and she insisted not only that she didn't want to take the leave but that she didn't need to take the leave that she could come to work and that


something else but that there was some evidence of frustration your honour's i believe for the reason set forth in our brief that the court erred they hope that there's an easier claim here don't worry about the clock just answer this question for you because this is important sure one fifteen if you


thirty two oz and that there's a conclusory statement on the at the end of the clean water act analysis but when they actually lay out the test and asked the question whether or not the existing lower yellowstone project will remain


some more time given her process you didn't appeal that ruling no i did not appeal that ruling but in terms of addressing your question but it i mean why is there any reason to think if we agreed even if we sent it back discovery is over so that deposition


national environmental policy act by failing to prepare any environmental analysis to evaluate the potential impacts of the sturdy and i just pause for a second i want to make sure i understand what is the relief that you are


just individual hunters as the center siri recited the definition for for group use of the forest is an activity conducted on national forest system lands that involves a


other zax that you want me to look at but you continue to ignore this if you will clause as eligible by the secretary and frankly that's why it seems to me that i


that if the rule all the relevant governing authorities in a community the city the county both agree that way whatever the requirements are under the law and will have a four way stop


moot i would like to raise one question on the merits which is that it seems to me the promise of the county's argument and of the district court's conclusion


is or whether you look at this case on the merits the district court decided the question on an issue that the city failed to brief or argue below and that by itself is enough for this court to determine that there was no abuse of discretion


city actually has no right of way at all over these two streets and it's only a limited railroad crossing easement there's no right of way well king county thought there was right of way because it was king county at the time these easements were acquired it was unincorporated king county there was no city of so mannish


minute substance want to push it into the fourteenth amendment i think it would be i think it would be i can't state that if the county had i think it would be wrongful i don't think it exists on this record it's certainly a portion of what happened in


plaintiff's appeal of the temporary restraining order is inappropriate specifically because there's nothing that this court can do that would impact the relief that was provided and it the restraining order in addition does


in support of a relief of a reversal of the decision and immediate payment of benefits separate from that possibility is the determination that the claimants testimony should be credited as true and that


so this is not one of those cases of that makes sense ok yes and i just want to say briefly with regard to the citation of marijuana because i think that's important and that was an error but that's a harmless error the reason it is a harmless error


a particular spreadsheet that was exhibit five twelve and it said you have to take every fact on this spread sheet as true as to display the quote facts close quote was that in column a w it had the heading display and then it had to get one of two


presents the facts of the university's own investigative report now bear in mind we are at the stage where we're just merely trying to break down the doors of discovery but as his client as he represented his client he was not allowed to take


things are bros in the late ninety's according to their complaint itself the people who are now gone dead this person told me in one thousand nine hundred ninety about something there why why is that a pleading issue and not something that can be discussed at summary judgment


saying is we don't believe it when you ask for a computer file for example when ever they use in defense of their position that they said to you this is how we do it this is how we get it


context of the case not a general proposition and as this court confirmed in arrington bay and the u s supreme court confirmed in white vs poly both last year you need a case with a similar fact pattern so what that means is illegal template that you can put on the facts and it's pretty darn


court can point to and say on a large scale basis where this kind of harm is alleged that a government has acted with the requisite level of intent that is necessary to establish a claim under the fourteenth


a year or two but even the e p a s and standard has admitted that the rule was not properly not clearly drafted and needed to be revised to make it clear you don't wait six months in a year while you're pumping lead


and all of those cases in addressing three o two has said it is to protect the employee here it's not to protect the union from employees but the employee from the union and here on issues are not new there's equitable restitution still available which this


out for this person if there is this house really condemned i mean if it's plainly on the screen and you get a wrong why isn't that


scene she had no idea what that original call was about or why someone was calling or who was calling about why or how or is this property red tagged all melissa harris knew was that


warrant affidavit should not be using a form book number one number two issue number one they should particularize it to the very offense in which they are presented it should have some some some guidelines some parameters and it should be


was was really just coincidental it wasn't a planned meeting by the transcript in this case when the people at the doctor's office talk about how the meeting occurred between the manager and the doctor's office you can read a


and to counsel him right up to his testimony at the grand jury obviously she can't go with him into the grand jury room right act and then if whoever is testifying against got indicted he then would have had a duty to show up


until the very moment he was placed in here thought he was about it was undisputed he was subdued no he alleges complaint that there was post arrest violence but then testimony at his deposition it was clear in the part


i don't have the types because there isn't one pass but the test is whether it's reasonable and is it reasonable given the fact that you have an officer that's not just simply whether sort of you know metaphysically we think it's reasonable the task is whether the


i'm rewriting it in my argument notes but we need to focus on the overall picture if any case cries for out for a noble review it's this one the comment by the district court judge


struggling with is when the answer to the connection between what you've been told and all of those data points are missing from the location at which the police officers arrive at what


here when you agreed to wire fraud and agree to steal gift cards and buy cigarettes with them our position of there is nothing that would give mr gilbert reasonably forseeable knowledge that her co defendants would intend to intentionally steal the identity of another person and therefore even if we


anything for the judge i think it needs to go back to the district court i don't think the district court could make a determination of damages without state court action if that's what you're asking but i wasn't really asking that but normally we wouldn't


you particularly because it ruled it was a subset of ruling of law and the reason it was a substantive ruling of law has some deep impact into this case the court said that it's subsidy because categorically


another situation where someone could have served forty years of an unconscious to sentence as a child and is simply won't make it your own or no one in the state of michigan coming in as a child has ever made it sixty years ok if i


can't apply it now but weaver to tells us it doesn't have to be vested in order for it to be an ex post facto violation the legislature put it in because they knew that people were entitled to it they didn't make a nonsensical section and


good afternoon may please the court has to show from the attorney general's office about half the state defendants with me accountable will escape bell's l i want to thank the court and of the clerks office and also venerable law school for hosting i think it really is very


percent so i think you have to keep that in my with respect to the term of years claims about the inadequacy of the prop process and whether it's been a meaningful opportunity for release when ninety percent of the class that they're talking about actually know now would ok i would have to push back a little on that


sentence that's the opportunity then to address the parole process but the threshold question is one that can be raised in state court and is pending in these cases as these different specific plaintiffs can raise their own individual claims


that colored the rest of the opinion this case is not about mandatory vaccination requirements the state of michigan has determined that parents have the right to a religious waiver it's not a constitutional requirement


if they do i don't know which one they're in their means or you know one thing but the purpose seems just get you know people but the means in the context the purpose of using a papal statement even if it were a true papal statement is


has a paragraph it's company one that says we don't mince words when we say that standing is a complicated doctrine that has you know you can explain it in a sentence or paragraph a lot of special kinds of decisions have been


penalty on individuals already alleged to be suffering a violation of their constitutional rights that mrs nikolaus is a knowledgeable catholic and it has extreme fortitude does not negate the fact that her constitutional rights were


still as far as he knows in business because he hasn't been arrested yet this is during that six hour period after thomas got arrested but before the police hit the house a guy understand your let's talk let's talk about the


sustained it's number one number two we're claiming knowledge or recklessness either way and i think that the basis for finding knowledge or recklessness here are the the very sharp distinctions between what they said on the two different


and that seems to me what just not being talked about in this case so judge i agree i think if you want to greece that there were some concerns that had to be diligence to the problem is no


i'm not going to belabor the facts here officers burka it was the only individual defendant in the case was was asked to assist the fugitive apprehension team in executing an arrest warrant


shown here so that that count should be dismissed as well officers


important respect and that is if i manufacture a product for example my duty exists before there's any injury to my duty is i have to design that


the question i have as to different which is their breach of contract claim which is as i understand the facts and tell me if i'm wrong you took the money and never paid the property taxes well the property taxes were eventually taken care of and actually the property has been


as fabrication so we go back to the first prong that was this in fact a violation of the constitutional rights one of the points that mr stupes highlights at length is that the defendants supposedly


what dr de young was being asked was is this plausible does this explain the injuries and she said i don't believe so she never anywhere in this record definitively says it couldn't have happened did you agree that the standard is recklessness


has consulted out approximately two hundred cases of child abuse or suspected child abuse including this faris case and he has used the same essential methodology to review and analyze evidence and form his cause of death


and most indictments i can bet this web site on our back out and it's understood that that income can encompass a somewhat broader time and i certainly agree with you there but we're talking about a whole year of evidence versus


well under your american ethical obligation right the question is what is binding on a brazilian court and i am really struggling with the idea that you can say something not in your


put them in handcuffs he also hears a muffled i'm not resisting by room and that where the officers say stop resisting and he says in paragraph twelve i never


interest things like like that we submit that the flood limit clearly unambiguously applies to both types of damages for several different reasons i think the policy makes


flood that that's just sort of a causal relationship that's described there not a coverage relationship and the same causal relationship it turns out is what triggers time element


a man for forty five minutes when he had a heart condition and even when he was cooperating in leading them to paperwork that were left by a previous occupant they wouldn't let the mother go to her screaming for seven year old who was just


follow versus a very services back in the day was basically looked at as saying that yeah you could have a deal if our claim and you could have a title seven claim and i don't think your your title seven claim is only dependent upon if you can get


days loss of privileges i don't think i was saying that for what it's worth i was saying there has to be a de minimus exception to this i did not say my name misconduct equals de minimus ok what's the case that establishes the point since it's not judge sutton anymore


legislature has specified that's exactly right your own and that's no different than any other statute of limitations case it happens all the time parties are trying to settle the case meanwhile the stack it runs doesn't mean that anyone necessarily intended the state you to run just a good runs


that's the moment when the stop began i would agree with that your honor i think that that is a reasonable point to consider the search excuse me the stop to have begun and and let your best authorities support that a reasonable person mr hurd situation at that


his back or his side to the building and then he is surrounded by police officers one in front of him and one to the side of him between himself and the parking lot so he was in fact physically


stop asking the driver to get out why did he put his hands up he put his hands up because he was confronted by an overwhelming show of course of police authority namely the presence did they made as to


are talking about thirty eight gift cards like you can call them store cards value cards reward cards they're cards from kohl's j c penney autozone dunkin donuts like i say there's only thirty eight of them what gets the government over the limit


activity that it finds motivated the state actors to act in the way they did and that that the reading of that circumstantial evidence allows and frantz that the


paraphrasing but i think that's what the district court said but curse to me that hypothetically let's say the state of florida after this plead refiled a second information and said we


the plaintiffs every benefit of the doubt and look at public interests the court was within its discretion and this order will be affirmed just based on public interest the duplicate litigation the fact that this is already at issue in the bahamas the


created in the higher education act that gives guarantee agencies the right to garnish wages so guarantee agency i mean a traditional debt collector that is not a guarantee agency can't just garnish wages if borrowers in default you can't go to their


separate case and was acquitted actually of the conspiracy but convicted up the bank fraud which is one of the issues in this case where the government used against my client numerous errors in the trial each one alone is


at there's no evidence of a conspiracy here and i don't know who the conspirator what conspirator who did because fire when he wasn't even in the same department he didn't know anything about the loans there was no conspiracy to commit thank you for


motion to amend a complaint and that's why it was denied but the issue regard in whether or not the court correctly denied his motion to him and i


twelve to eighteen months to this proceeding and a new court you see you as you say in the hammonds case and many others you use much judgment restraint and discretion and certifying and think about the things that would have to happen so they can't possibly win under the common law


we were able to get that in march if they had delivered their cotton to us it would have been sold during the period of time from november third through march so our liquidated damages provision you don't


controlled it does it does not matter i mean the issue is that the person has possessed a substance controlled by the state law and whether that substance is a b c or d it doesn't matter now there are the cases that talk


the jury didn't have to find specific element in new york the court actually says that that that wasn't my case and that maybe that maybe there isn't a case in new york that says you have to dane's


asterisk is still there and you got the writing in box twenty five that's whenever it was it was not a model of clarity what the parties were getting at was a well if you if you look at that part two


two things a matter of contract law itself beyond the terms of this contract is it not clearly the law the binding law here that when two contract terms


conflict the specific term controls over the general just is a matter of normal contract to interpretation agree with you judge isn't the specific london and the general is just leaving the


they claim in that case did not even say that her that she had mental impairment and she attended school through the twelfth grade she earned a ged and she had passed relevant work as a nursing assistant she passed a nursing assistant


more and more need to introduce evidence of motive when you do have conflicting well the evidence was was so shaky on idea your honor but i don't know that that necessarily means that you then are the doors and open to show his bank records and to show


exactly why we have problems in foreign commerce because of lax pollution laws lax labor laws so forth or we have problems with stock exchanges because we have swiss


in terms of in or out of class but would go in the hypothetical i gave you just doesn't feel like it's very related to the university well and but tinker tells us where the facts have to end in the facts have to end with an invasion of the rights of


more rights but it does not at all shot my conscious to think that if somebody misbehaves outside of school and a student is going to have to be in class with that person the university has the authority the


reaching the paralyzing factors and as a result both district courts didn't order any restitution and i don't think that that's in line with what the spirit apparently is what parallel and wanted to do was allow a pathway for restitution for


fully disclose all the documents in response to his first request counsel could you help us understand the issue about the end c i s report which indicated that the documents were destroyed


to show the apparent conflict in it it appears that that record has not been established and certainly not even challenging the number of jobs are what i do at the hearing is different what other attorneys do but i wasn't the attorney at


boy i was next moving to your honor that two of the issues that are independent grounds for summary judgment for the agency are that she failed to show a causal connection because there was no close temporal proximity and


yes would knock you off for your clients that missed the hall's version was blatantly contradicted by the evidence that the medical report showed no trauma no no


jackson in looking at the nature of force versus the extent of the injury because here i mean we did not see any injury as a result of their tasing the tightness relied on the sound as we do case for the fact that courts have now shifted


lawful presence or rather deferred action has been recognized as a historical practice by the executive that grants to further action to individuals who would otherwise be subject to removal the supreme court


no your honor the document no does not confer immigration status which is a distinct classification under the eye and say what the doctor memo does is to channel agency discretion that has is has existed for decades as recognized by the


have today what am i missing your honor first and foremost if the documentary were to go away tomorrow there would still be a claim because our clients have been harmed to this point to the extent that the executive repeals


so this business about it being six x i i i think that's a nonstarter at least from the perspective of the jury


position you've got a couple of bulky footnotes addressing government speech and then some sort of later discussion of it in an establishment clause portion of your brief can you explain to us why


human being said at a football game is going to take a half time show


say that we just don't know we can't tell and so the real question is whether the complaint states a claim laws oblio


probably pull the trigger not probably did pull the trigger too fast and and lastly going back to the whole government speech which i understand is the courts is one of the court's concerns here you know that's not something


prosecutor i don't know that the record bears that out because it was mr english who testified in his deposition who was the clerk and he stated i asked judge and did he want me to call respondents counsel and request an order


and everybody fell off the porch and it there ended up on death row it seemed to be that was the way the prosecutors dismissed it but here you've got a guy who indisputable when he was a little kid


presumably are entitled to deference unclear or if you and you know i understand there's a high bar there and again we would just state that in this particular instance you have mr selig given testimony five years after trial and


difficulties and that's what was more fully developed in the state habeas hearing when mr jefferson's family was spoken to for more than probably the hour or so that they spent the trial the punishment in


i don't agree with that the main thing we wanted was a remain for further proceedings so we could be in the court that had jurisdiction to hear this issue the court of criminal appeals does not have jurisdiction over original or amended


unreasonable strict judge sided that as evidence in the rule thirty two hearing ok that's where i found that that that's right but the state court did not rely on that wilson versus seller says you were you limit yourself to that decision reached by the state court and they


back here and they're asking if they're asking for federal and state tax returns for these years here is why we object and then the court can deal with that i can't read these and say well that doesn't sound legitimate when i don't even know if there are documents responsive to that and then she says we've got to operate a little


have transco raise that as a defense and weeps anticipated that defense in our complaint and we're trying to you know hide the ball that there was a fair project out there but if transco didn't raise that defense or there was


bargaining agreement the court to determine whether or not plaintiff has a claim in the first instance the court is going to be required to interpret the print disputed provisions of the collective bargaining agreement that plaintiff alleges entitle her to be reinstated


points of section three zero one preemption and reaching the conclusions of the figaro a court declined to reach a fair reading of figaro is that a state and city can adopt more strenuous protections than the d a four and into enforcing that


juries conduct what they were focused on be asked about the grievance the grievance was a dismissed claim if it had not been dismissed at summary judgment we would not be making this argument here and we know that the jury picked the october th date because they asked


the statute but the statute goes on to say that if any person in a particular title has their salary raised based on qualifications then any other individual holding that


in that case it would be april of two thousand and seventeen so you have a different alleged onset date there are also different impairments alleged this isn't much earlier rounds yes this is april two thousand and thirteen so you have different alleged


dobbs laid out very clearly disagreed the company said repeatedly that it like the vehicle business it didn't want to see it didn't want to spin it off it was clear truthful and direct about why i like the vehicles business i like the high returns and like the strong


was the prevailing party for only one of these issues and that issue was whether the two thousand and one or the two thousand and four agreement prevailed and was not prevailing just


fairness and justice that the city is seeming that they can circumvent the fourth amendment they also understand that he filed a complaint which was before the commissioner that never had a ruling so the understanding of it is if


unfortunate experience the plaintiffs had with their home contractor as described by counsel for appellants the issues on appeal here are very limited they are first whether plaintiffs timely commenced an action with the district court and second whether plaintiffs


never told it was drugs why wouldn't all that of evidence not change the outcome in this case explain how a general denial would take away all those details that she gave to the agents because just to start with with conscious


that's particularly so because the text of the regulation which is in effect it's three ten a and its founders are attend them to a brief it page five day says quote any state that elects to operate in exchange but that does not elect to administer


person from his in name playford he's the person who testified at the trial what he testified to was that an understanding that place x information was being received in unlawful way and the government said not once not twice but four or five


situation they didn't say you have to graft upon where mail from title eighteen the insider trading elements respectful your honor no so st of all two points st of all the reason the court deadlocked on


testified that he viewed that as highly confidential and that it gave a roadmap for how the agency was thinking about the proposed change in the rules or also when he was confronted by agents


mortgage there may be a different rate there that applies there's also a provision in the contract that states that after the st ten years where they can draw that some of those terms will change


asking is that judge code put these these points into the same discretionary factor analysis that the supreme court set forth and in doing so you're she was being able to look beyond but then made a series of


matter to conclude that this was so or even if it is that whether it's intel factor number one are an independent factor is not a factor that should be considered to weigh at least as heavily as the


just names those are in fact entities with people who are involved with porsha that's our belief we've heard nothing to the contrary and so we've never disputed that the investment bankers were primarily involved in new york but we don't


with the benefit of two thousand and twenty hindsight after he'd seen the video to take back what had happened it happened in eight seconds less than it took me to introduce myself today and so i would just dispute the idea that


it comes up and it couldn't be clearer to have this kind of objective testimony from somebody pursuing a contract he came up and said oh yeah i got there thanks a lot mr russo unlike microsoft's at oh you got it ok there's no mike russo never once on the record said


inconsistent with jones to requirement but i'm just sort of curious practically speaking with that procedure available to him it was not available to him in this case he did i think he did file a nd grievance


viewed as measured exclusively by whether a decision issues rank right and in that obviously that would be an extreme circumstance here but i do is that is that the position you're arguing for that would be the position but then you know you also have to realize the law


decision does support our position in the sense that the court ruled that an attempted bank robbery offense does qualify as a crime of violence under section one hundred and twenty four dollars c i think there's some other language in the


but didn't change the medications so that if that wasn't found the patient wasn't getting the medications would have gotten them the patient was supposed to get the medications would not have gotten them and all of these four


the hipaa violation went straight and i just i think this is a response from you on the hipaa violation went straight to the good the other two when students were another supervisor loretta mahoney who had again there's no obligations


worship make it a place of worship so that it's so that it's covered and i understand the hypothetical your honor just st quickly these places involved worship all the three things that they were doing involve worship so that's


and then compound that error by ordering the deposition of acting assistant attorney general gore although the gore deposition is what precipitated the government's mandamus petition i would like to begin with the threshold issue of extra


department of justice itself and the reason that matters is two things first of all for discovery purposes what this shift in position shows is that the secretary's sort of record before the court is not a reliable record in the first instance


fact that the census is is counting non citizens and that that factors into a portion of your honor to your question but the apportionment problem arises for


in the ross memorandum and the the administrative record subsequently was was supplemented by the defendants and the documents that we're talking about here i believe all calm principally from that supplementation


ross says he was doing this to help enforce the v r a and yet all the evidence supplied by the census bureau and other departments is that it would have the exact counter


evidence of them you shouldn't be instructing them on this lack of unanimity think we just want yes the jury did you can animists we agree that there was probable cause for obstruction governmental image gratian if the injured noted that then we would know that at least some of them came to the


jurors can come to the conclusion of probable cause based on different facts just as a finding in a criminal trial can be based on different facts as long as the elements are met


written by him they were written and conjured up by some inmates legal expert who was in jail i can assure you having corresponded with the plaintiff that he does not have the ability to rights or to really think


the cultural the natural resources and the social objectives now two of those the cultural and the natural resources are handled very discreetly in the plan they're primarily focused on two areas within the seashore the cultural is at the wm


scientific research supports the notion that a deer density greater than twenty has a negative impact on forced regeneration natural force regeneration and the park service erred on the upper end of


think the time that i've spent with the videos thus far i'm not seeing that i see very quick entry into the clinic from a fifteen feet sidewalk crossing the sidewalk there are protesters usually


goes back to the district court and what we can say we follow what they did certainly your honor and again to be clear only one defendant submitted an affidavit attesting that they would not engage in one particular type of conduct and that a slow walking so the district


know understood but if it's in the violence area then there's always the question of can the crime be committed by less than violent conduct and and often a speculation about that right because you had a robbery


so it's it's you you say it's not true that these four categories are included in federal definition of controlled substances that the court dealt with in towns and


sorry the appellee tries to use the this court's analysis to to demonstrate that mr parra like was not represented properly in the bankruptcy court but that fails


why to reach really traceability and redress ability at the same time because ordinarily they do travel together if someone causes harm and doing what they did ordinarily redresses at least some of it with respect to the claim that the


do we find something that that sort of inches on quote a federally recognized name i mean listen i'm totally sympathetic with your clients position but so what i mean somebody can come in here and say i got a federally


support it and we have proof submitted to support the facts always going beyond what i think of the fairly dramatic uses of federal recognition of the t t a b the department actually made a party admission here in which in writing to


is entitled to some reinforcement of those parts of its orders remedying several uncontested violations to the board properly found that the company unlawfully disciplined and then discharged two employees for union activity and


february twenty fifth suddenly became improper nothing changed the government talks about you know went from one account to another well this court was one of the forerunners in that area and the tenser decision in one


doesn't do that but i also don't think that it's a burden on the end and system blew file an answer and file a motion for summary judgment as joey pointed out there has been testimony in this case there is there is evidence that's been out there for more than


can go out and help these people comply with all the fannie mae's rules regulations will do back office of course form will help them make sure everything is just the way through any mail likes it and it'll be seamless to you we won't charge you any extra money for and


so she helped him to conceal him that way now what finch said about small was that he had participated in a conference call with her he did not say and there is no evidence in the record that suggests that he asked or small whether


that that's later but at the time of the investigation what investigations knew what its good faith basis for its determination going about the information routes in the district court about the difference between more and


to make on that is mr izrael had has suffered numerous prior criminal convictions and not once the government is aware that he's ever been found and competent to proceed in any of those prior proceedings or ever been found not guilty by


associated or incurred by the physician in providing those services and was that in the record yes is that whereas that in the record again that would be the testimony of myth miss katherine crosby it is also


to have different burdens of proof for your counts of conventional little so what is the government what is your strongest argument to affirm the sentences they got now is it is a relevant conduct argument absolutely oka absolutely by preponderance of the evidence the expert


last calculation is challenging to employ in this type of case the actually intended loss it's like fitting a square peg into a round hole so you've got a guideline provision that fits better if it's better because there's no question that this oftens involved controlled substances the


for the injury they lost money by not being able to stage the yes secondly they got the injuries clearly traceable to the conduct of this resolution irrespective of who it was a


is well aware with the dance of technology devices have become smaller much more powerful and indeed the cell phone today is much more like a micro computer than it is a cell phone


expects to gain by dismissing and we siling the trying to get out of a jurisdictional argument in texas and in this case they say that who they'd rather be in new mexico but it's not entirely clear what advantage they


so by statute now the reason that the senate's got so high in the six hundred fifty two month range was because there was four counts that were drug related counts down and the guideline range for that came to two hundred ninety two to


defendant by a series of tattoos not just one or two but according to the p s are a number of tattoos that matched tattoos that were in fact on the defendant's body there was corroboration by the victim or the defendant's


when the warrant was executed words were the sixteen individuals that you just referenced those qualified for medicare in any way is is the issue that they wound up with but


birthday party and i say no i don't get everybody it just doesn't look right you're home from school you shouldn't go to the party now maybe i'm being too strict maybe the company was being too strict in taking the view of suspicious you're at the beyonce concert but you can't show


how is an insurance company in two thousand and twelve who's following the law in place the time under the case benchmark supposed to know in two years the court is going to make a change in the decision but regardless macallan doesn't apply at


stop the pursuit does not constitute a violation of the slain motorist constitutional rights under these circumstances an assault on which sometimes it does well your honor i would agree but in this particular case i believe that the facts


another procedural aspect of the case that makes it unique under twenty three zero one eight zero five b the court was required to give deference to the findings and conclusions of the board and that in fact is what the court did but also point out that there summary


substances what additional facts do you think should be included in the reconstituted affidavit well we believe i believe that the facts starting with


and also you are going back to the object of reasonableness of paralysis conduct here there were facts known to her known to miller that were not in the public domain for example the two shots


north of six flags the corner or the area where the street car wash case is on cooper street a little south of that and a little east but they're within two miles of each other they're both prominent intersections into the intern


application or the development plan as a whole and what's in the best interest of their city as two city council collectively making a decision we say no but that decision was made in one thousand nine hundred one to allow the use as a carville


foreclosure and that's what we're here well the payments have not been made you know i had a case once where we settled for some money and an apology you would have ever been able to get an apology out of a jury trial but that was part of the settlement


those would include curtis johnson as well as all of this course forest clause cases i would also submit that that same argument could have been raised in lawrence taylor as a matter of fact it was raised by the district court in lawrence taylor and that's in this court's opinion the court


january tenth direct that's your that's that's the answer my question yes is there any other piece of evidence that supports i mean i know that i have a whole list of all the letters but


criminal activity if you read line by line eli's hand written document it simply said that castle confronted garza about a suppose it's set up and then garza told castle all this information about piper


community face by virtue of factors beyond their control what this case shows us is that how certain biases and nonexistent threats combine the poor policing practices are used to justify the use of lethal force


in the texas statute that there are to follow federal law don't take into account the difference in the language use the motivating factor language i think compels what the fifth circuit said was a prime


standard for gender discrimination claims in davis versus city grapevine and donaldson versus texas department of aging or disability services which we both which we cited in their brief the texas courts use the elite c standard for


a parallel state court proceeding with quite to the contrary it's the first factor well excuse me he says that's just what but that's just one factor it's just one out of four


case was fallen in anticipation of the suit was brought by chase a mere three days later in the southern district of ohio the court has focused on the sole improper purpose of the case which i


and jackson versus united states or united artists theatres from the district in nevada in two thousand and eleven the trial court took a very similar situation and came to a drastically different result where party has provided a medical release in lieu of providing physical


copies of records the court found nothing in these rules prohibits a plaintiff from voluntarily providing in a defendant from accepting a signed medical authorization so the offended can obtain the plaintiff's medical records and bills directly from the providers the court goes on to say a defendant may


impacts the fairness integrity or public public reputation of judicial proceedings in this case the defendant pled guilty in open court the judge specifically asked if he willingly and knowingly entered into the proposed plea he answered in the affirmative his


court says at least the pleading stage i think there's enough to let this case go forward and then you see if you don't you're the defendant you don't think the judges is loving your arguments you go to trial arbitration it seems to me i mean forget this thing of cost and


seeking a decision on the merits there's no inconsistency in this court's cases she has asked this court to adopt a test that every motion that seeks dismissal of prejudice automatically substantially books additional process and then here today she's gone further and said actually you automatically waive


testified the exact clothing he was wearing at the time he was arrested that taken together with the fact that thirty two hundred of the forty two hundred that was stoned that day was found among his possessions and nights in room one twelve the motel room he rented


thompson that the mask was blue not white might be helpful to the government on counts three and four they're a very little help to the government on counts five and six where there was no mask use the mask was recovered in the car after count four


statutory definition void for vagueness would have wide ranging effects because the supreme court holds that a successful vagueness chalons renders the law incapable of any valid application now that's also consistent with


forty eight thousand dollars changing hands between mr cell and the undercover i r s agent with leah perot right air in the passenger seat or the back seat and on the closing argument point i think any sort of


does make him an expert in how to bill and how to code and how to read charts and how to know what services patients are truly eligible for but to have looked at merely a fraction of those charts and then determined well i guess the charts don't


they filed a motion to dismiss correct thought of this and to dismiss under a particular statute which is not as it doesn't matter what they filed it under because in the federal i mean there's no way you're not under the federal rules


was going on the premise that he was only looking at thirty seven dollars to forty six dollars and i see that the difference between a wee between a guilty conviction my plea in a guilty conviction a trial is much greater if he'd known the range but it can also


yourself talking to your lawyer but i was privileged that's correct but but we're in the position now that you're going back and you're looking into that conversation and you're using that conversation to say


different from curtis johnson that is also very different from still cling and and because of that this this particular crime does not include johnson's force i do want to speak to the fact that the


teddy and the other crime or even a lead guess my question is even if i agree with you that the drug in our g is not a very good one i agree because that's in connection with


that's why i started my argument by telling you that this is a case of st impression and it's a different sort of case because it makes the court consider this is a case where you have unfortunately a lot


into arrangements to take on the substantial risk and providing at the overall picture here of the cost savings that are supposed to be in your into the benefit of the tax payers if you will you're dealing with these various


i've as we have highlighted here there is really no fundamental dispute as to whether or not and we can use the auto owner's cases as an example there's no dispute that a settlement was entered into there's no dispute that it appears that owners made


to travelers on that issue which was the sole issue raised in the traveler's appeal and mr friedman will be addressing that dismissal with prejudice for all the cases


for a very good economical reason because the m a o still retains the right to assert that claim so as discussed at length in the amicus brief there's not going to be double recovery right there


your honor i think it definitely the latter as i said she said can you tell me who the m a o is can you tell me what the relationship is can you give me why you are suing a sweat was the


between being out money and make a payment the f r rose as described by the appellants are just insurance companies they don't use that word but if you read the regulations the judge walker cited that's what they are they take the financial risk of


come before the court under one thousand three hundred and ninety five dollars y b three a under the article three standing test rests with the full risk organization the risk bearing entity which is contemplated throughout the statute as has been as has been discussed thus far and when we


sufficient to get to trade it to create a question about whether any such actions would have been outside liam burns job responsibilities whether they would have been outside their job functions to cite the st


on the rd prong a federal officer movable for colorable defenses assent apparently effectively concedes that the express preemption provision would apply here at least be a colorable defense to these claims and as i mentioned earlier that


it's not medically necessary oh no what they did here was they as we've alleged they just basically said we've over pages so even though you're still rendering good medical services to our members we're just going to stop paying you on these other


distinguishable and i think when the court goes back and just reviews it you will agree that is expressly expressly a right to payment case and therefore the


those cases hold that when there is a finding of liability for attorney's fees at the same time as the final judgment if that issue is not appealed within the thirty dollars days after the final judgment it's


owners are presumed qualified to testify about the before value of their property that's opinion testimony and they're presumed to have that that skill to and the knowledge to testify about before about


into what the owner wants for compensation not based on fair market value and that's what happened here but just because the owner testifies to it doesn't mean that the the fact finder has to credit the testimony


interest and a way to protect him it's up to you guys that's what auto owners said this isn't a case like you see some the citations where behind the insurance companies back they secretly negotiated deal this is a case where over and over again over the course of months


now the court essentially found as a matter of law that arpan in sons was a statutory employer of my client mr blue now for that finding ten


problematic for us as far as extortion and communication that was the codefendant that was involved in that and we believe that the circumstantial evidence is just insufficient for a reasonable inference that has come as was an aider and abettor of that count as to count two that's a text


banks i could be considered aiding and abetting each of those robberies so we're even just this early communication asking do you have the new pictures here's his phone number could be sufficient to find aiding and abetting part of each of these offenses


on and the the the opposing party was able to look in a much more favorable light then he should have had all the evidence come out so that went up on appeal on an unreliable record and was affirmed on the


prop so we've been litigating some of these issues for sixty seven years now and you know i know what was in light of what you just explain what was the adverse or


that represented face were there and so we feel that that was a pretext to say well here's a way to make the date for my recusal as a recent date and not go back


and the charging instruments is folks touching or striking and bodily harm or bodily harm that is enough to say with certitude that it's


to document ninety one dollars at page thirty this is the government's closing argument young lawful purpose of that plan was to distribute or possess with intent to distribute it to controlled substances we've been


statement in your brief it page nineteen that says the following based solely on dobyns sworn statement mcdonough may have had probable cause for the arrest however that changed once he found no physical evidence corroborating her statements so


you're you're you're establishing that for probable cause for an arrest officers have to do a complete and thorough investigation no that's not what i'm asking your honor i'm saying that they need to do a reasonable investigation and they


seems to me to be kind of beside the point because it's so clear that this didn't run directly to the taxpayer but one looks just prior year instead of the affiliates and cullen and i mean you see the same kind of patterns in these cases


interest prior to any cause of action be initiated being initiated and the language in b three says the government may in accordance with three a collect double damages against such entity


cases the court has upheld these types of findings there was some type of trial testimony or testimony at another hearing of the witness on which the drug quantity finding was based in one


recent discussion and move in moving backwards i was sent to you that that evidence that mr tracy was talking about about the fed ex packages i don't believe that mr cent aleck ever said that those two addresses that were


ours nobody removed from change of residence for two years old can feed your honor that there is a document in the record which reflects that no one was removed for these two years however a supervisor of


your question there sorry i forgot the question it was about over the jurisdiction yes i as pointed out those further point out it doesn't really matter in this case because


or in part and really were traveling on the latter issue although we played both alternatively i guess as a prophylactic measure and frankly it's not even necessary i don't believe for the court to refuse


bad faith here carnivals read that they hung there had on below was that well this was it was destroyed in the reasonable course of operations but let's be clear this was not a situation


need something beyond st say anticipation there's litigation is anticipated in those situations because the injuries are more serious and then at that point it triggers an investigation with security and then it goes to maintenance and then it goes to the housekeeping stewards down the


think that it is your honor and the vast majority of these of course you're going to hear from carnival three times week carnival has thousands of claims they have hundreds of cases are going to legation and that none of them have the same kind of retention issue this week the times the times


before the court there's nothing preventing this court to go back and do what they often do in summary judgment cases in fact i handled one of these where i got a reversal from this court and said well we're going to remand for to allow the district court to consider additional


disability does not rise to the level of intellectual disability and there is still itself power for medicaid in other words testimony given like that given by the window


to shave their testimony and to use testimony is consistent with one another inconsistent records to set aside that and say that does not establish prejudice is is absolutely an


believe that the union employee was fired for the reason that he was associated with the union then the fact that a nonunion employer was for fired at the same time is viewed more as collateral


and in the district court the court agreed with the commission that we had satisfied all the necessary prerequisite to the suit and the court also agreed with the commission's argument that we had a proper cause of action for this claim or section seven zero


unreasonably delay appointing counsel and unreasonably hurried along these days it was it was a challenge to conduct and that's what we're doing here and i think when you when you read the cases that involve a challenge statute you can obviously read those cases and


and the jury as you say took it finally that they were allowed to keep going because that's what they did they did on friday they did on monday and that context shows no evidence of a venn being pressured or


sentence in that case actually consider the fact that he would likely he's been required to serve eighty five percent which would actually bring the sentence down to thirty years and seven months so there is a factor that they


is that natural progression the doctors all of the treating doctors expressed an opinion on causal connection that's in the record did they say


requirements have come a long way not only are sex offenders required to routinely show up at a police station and register if their registration information but that that information is widely


registration is just a collateral consequence as being greatly modified and the burden on registered sex offenders at this point is extremely onerous and for that he said they should be entitled to seek relief they should have


the court to do here in terms of the ninety day rule and then again this is this is something that's not interest in the breeze briefs but he


a mandatory add on to someone who is under eighteen i'm known as the caters of a strong public policy shift it's been going on for three years now it might indicate that the


disagreed but that he still bound by the arbitration award and you know the and the important thing is that he just disregarded what the arbitrator said and decided that no attorney's fees


indicating satisfaction of the judgment was that time before you filed your motion to dismiss under full fast twenty three b i personally did not however i was successor counsel prior counsel the stewart crossed off law firm headed not


they have a problem with the fact that it's going to be inconsistent for them to find him guilty of murder but also find him not guilty of just charge of fire and that's why the accident the definition of acts in the i p i is that he is that restricted


found that mr money would never make the same mistake again and for his single conviction of aggravated criminal sexual abuse in this case sentenced him to two years of probation on what basis is the trial court concluded mr monti would never really


said that certainly i disagree respectfully with counsel that the public arena has admitted that there's no contract he said i argued specifically that there was a contract to open bank accounts the type and the manner in which it was done was the


was wearing feet four feet or so from from darien at the time of the shooting at gas station he only saw one gun nobody saw a second gun so


and i know counsel tried to distinguish this in this case the temporary phrase very clearly stated by the legislature when they chose to defer in delay the implementation of the changes to section five one thirty in this case is


pothole doesn't mean that it's a static condition and it doesn't mean necessarily that a piece does a danger and for this court to charge the c t a and its bus operators to know the condition of each and every pothole three miles of city streets and hundreds of bus


the real walk all right we've got construction we've got other buses we've got taxi cabs we've had everything else going on so what are you saying you said in case of spot the bass can't park next to the curb and


some disclosure it's impossible to believe but the chicago police department did not do anything to say against this person and then when he comes back to the exist had no disclosure responsibility but


misunderstanding of what would happen if he decided not to talk to the police and that's sad i as a matter of law requires suppression of


fine correct and under no this visit we favor of an employer employee relationship no you are because under those cases people can apply to be employer employee or they can apply to be an independent contractor here mr


after the relationship ended and he was no longer driving them because they terminated the relationship and there's no retaliation claim that's not an issue in this case only after that was and he was only there about a month trying to most under contract


states there is to be calculated based on the actual earnings of the employee in the employment in which he was working at the time of the injury and you would say that your compass the other position


compensation commission violated the law of the case and that would be a dyno of a standard and second whether the denial of temporary total disability and medical benefits and especially setting the cessation of benefits is of


about being insane was the state used to you consciousness of guilt when in fact when you dealing with someone so deeply mentally ill who is dealing with such delusions generally means something else entirely it would have given context to


if we will at the state and federal law namely the other way preventing sexual violence and higher education and the federal state act and we look at the illinois and federal public policy concerning this issue campus sexual assaults


a case i think that when there's an exclusive agreement for exclusive representation both representation we're parkside be clued from going to any third party for any advice or and center any


a very quickly and during that show up probable cause arose and that was based on the the city that they were close to where the battery and robbery had just occurred it's based on them wearing the same clothing that they were teenagers


stopped near ninety fifth and rested about a mile away but they also called the pair veterans park which is eight miles from the scene of the stop so i don't think you can say with any certainty this happened close to the time of the offense where near the


gratian this case deals with the interpretation and application of the telephone consumer protection act and we're here today asking that the court that this clear reverse the trial course entry of summary judgment


some limits on somebody but some amount in the real world to do business and he goes outside the scope of the story and the people he's dealing with have no reason to doubt that he's actually representing me that's


is because there is an effort to protect the entire system and the trial court's job should not go into all these every areas and become a target for any other case as i feel unsafe because the fifty thousand dollars on top


rejected previous proceedings and to the extent that there was any quote new test or new examination employed in this case that wouldn't pass muster understand bridge in stanbridge which was a consolidated case with two respondents


make changes to it if you want to feel it took it down it correctly you can amend it you can add to it there there's there's a lot of what we have here is odd dr kate's writing down in his own he and his thoughts impressions as he interviews


what else are you complaining about other than those advertisements that we found when we went to be on the complaint that we're supposed to fix what about his argument and if


issue in a ten year frankly is that there's not really a good case law in illinois recognizing the fact that the c g l's height policy with regards to


a very small trace it's not a lot said white it's a very small place for autos that you lease and use in your business and that or those that you lease and don't use in your business and then to defeat the conflict in the confusion that came up here forces that they


where it allowed a driver to drive a vehicle on insured and then after that accident occurred it notified accidental that it sought to add the pall of the truck to the policy i thought that i thought that truck


because it was a big you know the reason why the progressive case howled that the automatic insurance provision applied is because their they first used the vehicle in question i may twelfth two


randall toy and one policy of under insured coverage automobile insurance coverage issued two to terry center he also made a claim under insured motorists coverage under two


a motion to reconsider i'm motion made before the court because they've either made some errors that we discovered evidence here here you didn't bring up the issue at all you bring it up on a motion to reconsider and then you say then we should look at it


that was completely fine as long as there was probable cause and that is what this court found is that there was probable cause and that search was entirely proper what the big if and i think that there's something certain here that


fingerprint testing or lab tests at the time you first place someone into custody but you say you don't have to have any evidence of patrols other than your intel before you pulled over the car one there was extensive surveillance information that there were drugs in this car


clearly here you would have been not focusing as with indirect benefits on the murderer but on the person who seeks to adhere it clearly she has unclean hands in the record establishes in both the ship


her conviction and the conviction of her husband do not suggest that she participated or intentionally unjustifiably class


that people would maintain that there is absolutely no evidence objective or subjective that it to liberate myth on the part of the officers to utilize a warrant first question first one later technique happened here in this


is they would not have been in any way but their decision would have been the same in this case because there was overwhelming evidence of yellow cabs illusional conduct in creating a brand in creating an insignia that was iconic


allegation petition for dissolution was attached to that verified come claim it wasn't attached to the first amended complaint that was the subject of the first minute complaint but i am aware that it is at the back and with respect to the


that were necessarily in the use a record that we believe further compel the result that the ads are valid as a matter of well over the summit reference first the expert for texas instruments in


law has changed post occupied office decision the change in our position it's not substantial and is one that is more of a clarification of the standard moving from what is directional control attribution