Answer:
The first mass privatization of state property occurred in Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1937: "It is a fact that the government of the National Socialist Party sold off public ownership in several state-owned firms in the middle of the 1930s.
Explanation:
The democrats currently possess less than a 2/3 majority in congress?
True or false
Answer:
truee
Explanation:
hope i helped you :)
What is a judicial review?
A The authority of the Supreme Court to declare laws or actions unconstitutional
B
The authority of a court to sentence a defendant.
C) The authority of a court to hear an appeal from a lower court.
Answer:
...A.) the authority of the supreme court to declare to laws or actions unconstitutional.
Which responsibility of citizens in a democracy do the media best support?
A Making informed decisions when voting
8. Serving onjuries
Paying taxes
Running for local office
Answer:
A. Making informed decisions when voting.
Explanation:
This question as well as the answer choices are oddly worded. However, the media is responsible for informing the public. While they are often biased and sometimes inaccurately representing the state of affairs, they inform the public nonetheless. Serving on juries and paying taxes don't really have anything to do with the media's duties. You could say running for local office, but the media is truly just an information source. While they may support someone running for office, they may also oppose and bash them. Therefore, they are most qualified to aid in the public making informed decisions when they vote.
Under which circumstances would you consider filing an amicus brief in an appeals case?
Answer:
An amicus curiae brief in support of a petitioner or appellant shall be filed within 30 days after the case is placed on the docket or a response is called for by the Court, whichever is later, and that time will not be extended.
what is section 398 ipc
Explanation:
Section 398 in The Indian Penal Code. 398. Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon. —If, at the time of attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed with any deadly weapon, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
: Put the following events in chronological order.
a. Britain & its
b. Declaration of
c. French and Indian
colonies are in
Independence
War
debt after the 7
years war
e. Boston Tea Party f. Tea Act
g. Taxation without
representation
h. Britain imposes
taxes
Answer:
um let me see i hope i can help
Explanation:
c
a
b
e
h
g
ILL NAME U AS BRAINLIEST IF CORRECT
Affirmative action is most often criticized for
A)
being reverse discrimination.
B)
refusing to help Native Americans.
C)
being of little help to minorities.
D)
ignoring past discrimination against women.
What is a legally enforceable contract where an agent or owner of a property gives the exclusive right of possession for a specific amount of time in exchange for money?
Answer:
A lease agreement.
Explanation:
A contract can be defined as an agreement between two or more parties (group of people) which gives rise to a mutual legal obligation or enforceable by law.
There are different types of contract in business and these includes: fixed-price contract, cost-plus contract, bilateral contract, implies contract, unilateral contract, adhesion contract, unconscionable contract, option contract, express contract, etc.
A lease agreement is a legally enforceable contract where an agent or owner of a property gives the exclusive right of possession for a specific amount of time in exchange for money.
Mutual assent is a legal term which represents an agreement by both parties to a contract. When two parties to a contract both have an understanding of the parameters, terms and conditions surrounding a contract, it ultimately implies that they are in agreement; this is generally referred to as mutual assent.
Which amendment was passed as a means of ensuring that newly freed slaves received all the rights and privileges of citizenship?
A) The Fourth Amendment
B) The fourteenth Amendment
C) The thirteenth Amendment
D) The twenty-sixth amendment
Who owns the alcoholic beverages of a private club?
Principle that only parties to the contract can take action against each other is called ………………………………. of contract.
Answer:
Privity is a doctrine of contract law that says contracts are only binding on the parties to a contract and that no third party can enforce the contract or be sued under it.
Explanation:
:)
The ___ has one supreme power over and above all other power in the state A) common law.
B) Civil law.
C) Constitution.
D) legislation
1. What if you were on a committee whose mission is to change the structure of your local police department? What type of organization would you recommend? How would it improve the crime situation?
2. What if police officers on community policing details reported directly to a committee comprised of residents from the community? What benefits might this provide? How would it affect the moral of the police? Would this improve crime fighting?
3. What if all current and future police officers were required to earn a bachelor’s degree in order to keep their jobs? Could this improve their effectiveness? Explain your perspective.
Answer:
There are as many definitions of empire as there have been empires, but some pretty familiar elements appear in most of them. It starts with working on our “control issues”.
1. Who is the plaintiff?
2. What issue did they bring to the court?
3. Who is the defendant?
4. What was their defense?
5. Who won the case?
estate of Melvin w Ballantyne, Deceased.(T.C.M. (CCH)2002-160(2003)
Answer:
2003) case opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. ... The Estate of Melvin Ballantyne and the executrix, Jean Ballantyne ... it generated; however, by virtue of the arrangement to pay one-half of ... The court noted that a partner must take into account his "distributive share" for each item of
Explanation:
Edge 2020
What inventions did south america have before the europeans came to south america
WILL MARK BRAINLIEST!!! 100 POINTS!!! For this project, you have the opportunity to be the author and write brief newspaper articles based on the torts discussed in this lesson: strict liability, products liability, misrepresentation of a product, and public and private nuisance. In the article you write, include some points about the defenses and remedies available for each tort. This exercise should be at least two to three paragraphs per tort (about 800 words in length total).
Answer:
Manufacturers are used to defending strict product liability actions when plaintiffs claim that their products are defective. But in the opioid litigation, plaintiffs have filed something else: more than 2,500 public nuisance cases so far.
Governmental entities across the country are filing suits alleging that opioid manufacturers deceptively marketed their legal, opioid-based pain medications to understate the medication’s addictive qualities and to overstate its effectiveness in treating pain. In addition, plaintiffs allege that opioid distributors failed to properly monitor how frequently the medication was prescribed and failed to stop filling prescription orders from known “pill mills.” The complaints claim that manufacturer defendants’ deceptive marketing schemes and distributor defendants’ failure to monitor led more people to become addicted to painkillers, which led to people turning to illegal opioids. The legal argument here is that the defendants’ actions in concert interfered with an alleged public right against unwarranted illness and addition. But is public nuisance law likely to be a successful avenue for prosecuting these types of mass tort claims? It has not been in the past.
This is the first of two posts that will address how plaintiffs have historically used public nuisance law to prosecute mass tort claims and how the plaintiffs in the current opioid litigation may fare.
Overview of Public Nuisance Law
In most states, a public nuisance is “an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.”[1] This definition is often broken down into four elements: (1) the defendant’s affirmative conduct caused (2) an unreasonable interference (3) with a right common to the general public (4) that is abatable.
Courts have interpreted these elements in different ways. For example, courts in Rhode Island and California have disagreed about when a public nuisance is abatable: the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that this element is satisfied only if the defendant had control over what caused the nuisance when the injury occurred, while the a California Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff need not prove this element at all.[2] And while the federal district court in Ohio handling the opioid multidistrict litigation (MDL) has held that the right to be free from unwarranted addiction is a public right,[3] the Supreme Court of Illinois held that the right to be “free from unreasonable jeopardy to health” is a private right and cannot be the basis of a public nuisance claim.[4]
Roots of Public Nuisance Law in Mass Tort Cases
Plaintiffs litigating mass tort cases have turned to public nuisance law over the past decades. In the 1980s and 1990s, plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempted to use it to hold asbestos manufacturers liable.[5] In one case, plaintiffs alleged that defendants created a nuisance by producing an asbestos-laced product that caused major health repercussions for a portion of the population. Plaintiffs argued that North Dakota nuisance law did not require defendants to have the asbestos-laced products within their control when the injury to the consumer occurred. Explicitly rejecting this theory, the Eighth Circuit held that North Dakota nuisance law required the defendant to have control over the product and found that defendant in the case before it did not have control over the asbestos-laced products because when the injury occurred, the products had already been distributed to consumers. The Eighth Circuit warned that broadening nuisance law to encompass these claims “would in effect totally rewrite” tort law, morphing nuisance law into “a monster that would devour in one gulp the entire law of tort.”[6]