Usually, it is between 3 and 6 years, but in some states it can be as high as 10 to 15 years.
Temporary restraining order vs preliminary injunction
Answer and Explanation:
Temporary Restraining Order:
Temporary Restraining Order abbreviated as 'TRO' is generally issued in situations demanding immediate action. Courts usually issue TROs on the basis of affidavit from those people or person whose interest needs to be protected or can be harmed. These TROs are issued so urgently that sometimes they do not even provide a chance for the other party to respond.
Preliminary Injunction:
Unlike Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions can't be carried further without providing the opportunity to the other side to be heard and respond. Generally, Preliminary Injunctions are summoned only after the other party has its say on it or we can say that these are usually issued only after complete trial or after the default or consent of the other party.
A temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction are both legal tools used by courts to prevent an action that is likely to cause irreparable harm, but they have some key differences in terms of how and when they are issued, as well as their duration and purpose. Here's a detailed explanation of each:
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO):
Definition: A TRO is a short-term measure issued by a court to prohibit a person or entity from taking an action that is likely to cause immediate and irreparable harm.Issuance: It can be granted immediately, often without notice to the opposing party, and without a hearing. This is known as an ex parte order.Duration: A TRO typically lasts only until a hearing can be held, usually within a few days to a maximum of 14 days. Its purpose is to maintain the status quo until a more formal court session can be convened.Example: If someone is threatening to destroy evidence before a case is heard, a TRO can be issued to prevent them from doing so until the hearing occurs.Preliminary Injunction:
Definition: A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order that prohibits a party from performing a specific action until the conclusion of a trial on the merits. It is more formal than a TRO.Issuance: Unlike a TRO, a preliminary injunction requires notice to the opposing party and a hearing where both sides can present their arguments and evidence.Duration: It is intended to last longer than a TRO, maintaining the status quo until the final resolution of the case, which could be several months or even years.Example: In a patent infringement case, a preliminary injunction might be used to prevent the alleged infringer from selling a product until the court can decide whether the patent is valid and infringed.In summary, both a TRO and a preliminary injunction are used to prevent harm that cannot be undone, but a TRO is a quick, short-term measure without the need for a hearing, while a preliminary injunction lasts longer and is issued after a hearing where both parties are heard.
Is it illegal to take someone's outdoor cat and neuter it without permission?
Answer:
very much so
Explanation:
you basically stole someone's property and mututlated it without any consent
What positions can the President appoint?
Answer:
The Appointments Clause gives the executive branch and the President, not Congress, the power to appoint federal officials. The President has the power to appoint federal judges, ambassadors, and other "principal officers” of the United States, subject to Senate confirmation of such appointments.
Explanation:
Who is the plaintiff in a criminal lawsuit
Article 2 of the constitution of the united states states that
Answer:
Article 2 of the United States Constitution is the section that makes the executive branch of the government.
Explanation:
The Executive branch of the government is the branch that has the responsibility and authority for the administration throughout the day of the state.
Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution discusses the executive branch, but the supremacy clause and requirement for state officials to support the Constitution are found in Article VI.
Article 2 of the Constitution of the United States is primarily concerned with the executive branch of the government, outlining the powers and responsibilities of the President and Vice President. However, the student's question refers to the supremacy clause and the requirement for state officials to support the Constitution, which is actually found in Article VI, not Article 2. Article VI addresses the constitutional accountability of state legislatures, executives, and judicial officers. It mandates that state officials swear an oath to support the U.S. Constitution, reinforcing the principle that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties are the supreme law of the land.
This article ensures the federal government's dominance over state laws and underscores federal law's precedence in case of conflict between state and federal law. The supremacy clause therein establishes that federal laws take precedence over state laws, and state judges must follow the Constitution, even if state laws or constitutions conflict with it.
At what part does suspect become classified as a defendant?
A suspect becomes classified as a defendant once they have been formally charged with a crime. This occurs after a thorough investigation by law enforcement and the prosecutor's office.
Explanation:In the legal process, a suspect becomes classified as a defendant once they have been formally charged with a crime. This typically occurs after a thorough investigation by law enforcement and the prosecutor's office. Once the suspect is formally charged, they are given the opportunity to defend themselves in court.
For example, if a suspect is arrested by the police and evidence is collected against them, the prosecutor may decide to file charges. At that point, the suspect becomes a defendant and will go through the legal process, including being arraigned and potentially facing trial.
This distinction is important because the rights and protections afforded to a defendant differ from those of a suspect. A defendant has the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
Learn more about Defendant in the Legal Process here:https://brainly.com/question/38841614
#SPJ2
help please 50 points
The office with the person that fills the position:
1. Vice President is Mike Pence.
2. President Pro Tempore of the Senate is Chuck Grassley.
3. Secretary of the State is Mike Pompeo.
4. Speaker of the House is Nancy Pelosi.
Answer:
1. Vice President: Mike Pence.
Mike Pence is the Vice President of the United States, and would assume the role of President if something happens to the current president Donald J. Trump that will render him unavailable.
2. President Pro Tempore of the Senate: Chuck Grassley
The Pro Tempore takes over the role of the Vice President if the VP becomes unavailable (such as taking leave, or replacing the President in the event of National Emergency).
3. Secretary of State: Mike Pompeo
The Secretary of State oversees the US interest in the world, and handles all foreign affairs.
4. Speaker of the House: Nancy Pelosi
The Speaker of the House creates and uses an agenda as well as manage all debates and maintains order in the House.
~
Justices practice judicial restraint when they
Answer:
Justices practice judicial restraint when they make narrow decisions that only relate to a specific case.
Explanation:
Judicial restraint is a principle of separation of powers that must be taken into account in judicial decision-making.
According to this principle, the case law should not answer or anticipate questions that fall within the original area of legislative or executive power (legal activism). These should not be answered and made binding by the highest courts, but rather by the constitutionally provided and legitimized bodies such as Congress or the federal government.
Justices employ judicial restraint when they interpret and apply the law with the goal of restricting their own power.
When using judicial restraint, justices frequently adhere to the original intent or text of the Constitution and defer to past court rulings. They avoid making taking over assumptions.
Justices try to respect the separation of powers and preserve the correct balance between the arms of government by using judicial restraint.
They think that the judiciary's primary job is to interpret and apply the law, rather than to make policy decisions or to substitute their own judgments for those of elected officials.
Learn more about judicial restraint, here:
https://brainly.com/question/29634216
#SPJ6
Before a case can be heard in a state high court, it must ____
Answer:
...heard in a district court.
Explanation:
The case must be heard inside a District Courts to a Circuit Court, and then finally a Supreme Court.
Difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter
Involuntary Manslaughter:
There is an important difference between voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. The term involuntary manslaughter is used to refer to the unintentional killing of a person. It might result from criminal negligence, recklessness, or misdemeanor.
The person who commits involuntary manslaughter does not want the victim to die. For example, a person who drives under the influence of alcohol may hit and kill a pedestrian, although killing him was not his intention.
Elements that constitute the offense :
A person can be charged with involuntary manslaughter if the following three criteria are met.
The defendant committed an act that resulted in the death of a person. The defendant knew that his conduct might endanger lives. The act was inherently dangerous or was done with a total lack of concern for human life.Voluntary Manslaughter:
The term voluntary manslaughter is used to refer to intentional killing. However, in involuntary killing, the person who commits the crime has no prior intention to kill. The murder happens in the ‘heat of passion’. The situations which lead to the crime are of the kind which would cause a person of rational judgment to become mentally or emotionally disturbed. In the absence of such causes, the killing could be regarded as first or second degree murder. Among the various kinds of homicides, this crime falls between murder, which is a crime committed with malice aforethought, and the excusable and justified taking of life committed in self-defense. The latter doesn’t constitute a crime.
Voluntary manslaughter is different than involuntary manslaughter and its definition depends upon the state in which the crime occurs. On the other hand, involuntary manslaughter occurs when a person dies due to the recklessness or irresponsibility of the defendant.
Heat of Passion:
According to Federal law, voluntary manslaughter is the illegal killing of a person without malicious intent. It happens in the ‘heat of passion’. This term is used to refer to an uncontrollable emotion that any reasonable person may experience under similar circumstances. In the case of first degree murder, the idea of malicious intent or premeditation is present, but it is absent in the case of voluntary manslaughter. The presence of one negates the other.
Voluntary manslaughter is sometimes also defined as an act of killing that is committed with the wrong notion that the killing is justified. For example, a person who kills another in self-defense may be charged with voluntary manslaughter if he was the original attacker in the situation.
Voluntary manslaughter occurs in the heat of passion after adequate provocation, negating premeditated intent to kill, while involuntary manslaughter involves no intent to kill and is usually due to reckless or negligent behavior. Voluntary manslaughter is graded higher than involuntary due to the initial intent involved.
The primary difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter lies in the presence or absence of intent to kill. Voluntary manslaughter involves a killing that occurs during an adequately provoked heat of passion, effectively negating premeditated murder intent.
This provocation must be severe enough to cause a reasonable person to lose self-control. Conversely, involuntary manslaughter involves an unlawful killing without any intent to kill. It can be a result of reckless or negligent behavior, a misdemeanor that leads to death, or vehicular manslaughter, which includes killings that occur while driving under reckless conditions or influence of substances.
When analyzing manslaughter grading, voluntary manslaughter is generally graded higher than involuntary manslaughter. This is because voluntary manslaughter still involves an element of intent, even though this intent is overshadowed by the heat of passion caused by adequate provocation.
In jurisdictions that classify manslaughter into degrees, first-degree manslaughter is punished more severely than second-degree manslaughter. Under the Model Penal Code, all manslaughter is graded as felonies of the second degree, whereas negligent killings, classified as negligent homicide, are felonies of the third degree.
It is crucial to understand the distinction between these two forms of manslaughter, as the presence or absence of intent as well as the circumstances surrounding the killing drastically affect the legal consequences and grading of the offense.
Alternative dispute resolution definition
Answer:
Alternative Dispute Resolution refers to any means of settling disputes outside of the courtroom. It typically includes early neutral evaluation, negotiation, conciliation, mediation, and arbitration.
What does it mean to be indicted by a grand jury
Answer:
there is enough evidence to bring to court
Explanation:
it doesn't not mean the person bring accused is found guilty it mean the court will look into the case
Answer:
Indicted means that you are formally accused of a crime. If a Grand Jury indicted you means that they found a probable cause to believe that you took part in a crime.
Explanation:
A Grand Jury is a group of citizens empowered by the federal law to conduct legal proceedings and decide whether the accused is guilty or not guilty.
If they found a probable cause according to the evidence presented they will decide to indict the suspect.
I hope this answer helps you.
What is one form of speech that is not protected by the U.S. Constitution? A. speech about religion B. political speech about a candidate C. speech protesting the government D. speech that is slanderous
Answer:
D
Explanation:
speech that is slanderous
slanderous is a false or malicious statement you can't be arrested for it but you can be sued and have to pay a fine for it
D) Speech that is slanderous is not protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Explanation:Slander is described as speech that is meant to tarnish someone's reputation or attack their good name. Slander forms one of the three categories of defamation with the other two including libel and defamation. The first amendment doesn't protect slander.
A case against defamation is strictly scrutinized since there is no clear quantifier to qualify speech as defamation or not. Some factors to consider in a defamation case checks the public stance of the injured party; whether the person is public or private figure and the context is also taken into consideration.
Which of the following is NOT a major type of cybercrime reported to the IC3?
a. government impersonation scams
b. advance fee fraud
c. identity theft
d. malware fraud
Answer:
i think its A but im not sure
Martin Acampora purchased a shotgun at a garage sale years ago, never used the weapon, and did not know of any defects in it. His 31-year-old son Marty borrowed the shotgun to go duck hunting. As Marty attempted to engage the safety mechanism, the shotgun fired. The force of the shotgun’s firing caused it to fall to the ground and to discharge another shot, which struck Marty in the hand. Classify the bailment in this case. What duty of care was owed by the bailor in this case? Is Martin liable to his son for the injury?
Answer:
Because he let his son borrow the gun for free, and had no knowledge of any issues it may have, he is not liable for his son's injury. His son did it to himself
The bailment in this case is a gratuitous bailment, where Martin owes a duty of slight care, ensuring the property is free from known defects. Martin did not know of any defects in the shotgun and was not negligent in its maintenance, making him not liable for Marty's injury.
In this case, we are dealing with a bailment, which is defined as the transfer of possession but not ownership of personal property for a specific purpose. Here, Marty borrowed the shotgun from Martin, making it a gratuitous bailment, as no payment or benefit was exchanged.
Duty of Care
In a gratuitous bailment where the bailor (Martin) lends property for the benefit of the bailee (Marty), the bailor owes a duty of slight care to ensure the property is free from known defects. Martin did not know of any defects in the shotgun, and there is no indication that he failed in his duty of slight care.
Liability
Since Martin was unaware of any defects and had not been negligent in maintaining the shotgun, he is not liable for Marty's injury. The accidental discharge of the shotgun presumably resulted from a hidden defect, which Martin could not have reasonably been expected to discover.
In order to protect trade secrets, particularly formulas, it is wise to apply for a patent. Please choose answer (a) if this statement is true or (b) if this statement is false
In order to protect trade secrets, particularly formulas, it is wise to apply for a patent, which is false. Thus option (b) is correct.
Applying for a patent is not the best way to protect trade secrets. Instead, trade secret protection is the appropriate measure for such scenarios.
Here’s why:
Patents require full disclosure of the invention or process, making it public once the patent is filed. This is counterproductive for trade secrets, which rely on confidentiality.Trade secrets refer to business information that companies keep confidential to maintain a competitive edge, such as formulas, practices, processes, designs, or instruments.Unlike patents, trade secrets do not have a fixed term of protection; they last as long as the information is kept confidential.A famous example is the formula for Coca-Cola, which remains a trade secret and is not patented. Despite not having patent protection, it has been kept confidential successfully for over a century.In conclusion, while patents provide legal protection for new inventions, trade secrets are better suited for formulas and confidential business practices that must remain undisclosed.
Why was the supreme court’s ruling important in gitlow v. New york?
Socialist Party of America has the member named Benjamin Gitlow who was sent to jail due to the writing of Left-wing manifesto by the State of New york. The Supreme Court's performed an essential position in this case because it utilized the due process law to decipher the matter of consolidation. This indicates that the Supreme Court determined that the Bill of Rights ought to be consolidated and accompanied by all State and not solely by the Federal government, in succession to preserve social groups upon any kind of distinction.
Answer: B
because it used the due process law to interpret the issue of incorporation
On edge (2020)
Explanation:
What is the statute of limitations on homicide?
Answer:
None
Explanation:
There is no statue of limitation for capital crimes or crimes considered heinous for society.
Statue of limitation is the time window where charges against the defendant can be filed. The general statue of limitation for felonies is five years.
The exceptions of this five year rule are: capital offences including homicide, terrorism and sexual offences against children.
The purpose of statue of limitation is to protect the defendant so that he does not have to justify his actions of many years ago.
Answer: None exist
Explanation: Statute of limitations is a law that is is used to set the maximum time or period for someone or a group of people involved have to initiate legal proceedings from the date the alleged offense was committed, either civil or criminal offenses. Unfortunately, cases like Homicide which involves the taking of someone life, have no status of limitation. This is because it is an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment.
Which best describes the basis for the right to privacy in the United States?
a. The right to privacy is a civil liberty that places limits on government power through the Constitution, especially the bill of rights.
b. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court defined the right to privacy by incorporating the Fourth Amendment and the right of people to be secure; the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment; the Ninth Amendment; and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
c. The right to privacy is embodied in the words of U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis, "the right to be left alone."
d. The term privacy is not in the Constitution or Bill or Rights but it does exist.
Answer:
the right to privacy is a civil liberty that places limits on government power through the constitution, especially the bill of rights
Answer:
d. The term privacy is not in the Constitution or Bill of Rights but it does exist.
Explanation:
The right of privacy is found on the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Let's remember that the first ten amendments to the Constitution are all comprised under the name Bill of Rights because they were declared all at the same time in response to the lack of clarity sustain in the first U.S. Constitution.
The right to privacy restrain the government of getting too much into the private life of the citizens and let them decide what to do with their lives. The term privacy is not explicitly stated but the Supreme Court had understood from different opinions as in Griswold v. Connecticut that in the amendments named after the right to privacy is granted.
I hope this answer helps you.
Which of the following is a valid defense to a defamation claim?
a. The statement was true.
b. The person making the statement made it only to the plaintiff, not to any third parties.
c. The statement was only an opinion.
d. All of these answers.
Answer: D
Explanation:
The answer is D. all of these answers.
d. All of the answers are valid defense to defamation claim.
Explanation:Defamation is a false accusation of one person to damage the reputation of other person or party. It is the false statement of actual fact. A person or party making a defamatory statement can be a privileged or a normal person.
If he/she is qualified and privileged, he/she should prove that the defamation is intentional or ill-will. In either case, one must prove the defamation in a legal way. The major defenses to a defamation claim are declaring the truth, qualified or absolute privilege, accept that it was a statement of opinion, written consent about the defamation, and defamation is made against someone else or third party.
A general requirement for informed consent is that no informed consent may include any exculpatory language. Exculpatory language is that which waives or appears to waive any of the subject’s legal rights or releases or appears to release those conducting the research from liability for negligence. Which of the following statements in a consent form is an example of exculpatory language?
a. Your participation in this research is voluntary. If you choose not to participate, or change your mind later, your decision will not affect your relationship with the researcher or your right to other services that you may be eligible for.
b. Taking part in the research is voluntary, but if you choose to take part, you waive the right to legal redress for any research-related injuries.
c. The researcher may stop you from taking part in this research without your consent if you experience side effects that make your emotional condition worse. If you become too emotionally distressed during the research, you may have to drop out.
d. In the event of any distress you may have related to this research, you will be given access to appropriate resources.
Answer:
b
Explanation:
using the word but makes it appear to waive liability
The statement in a consent form is an example of exculpatory language Taking part in the research is voluntary, but if you choose to take part, you waive the right to legal redress for any research-related injuries. Thus the correct option is B.
What is Exculpatory language?A form of language that appears to sacrifice any constitutional protections of the subject and such language is not permitted in the written agreement is called Exculpatory language.
I surrender any chance of receiving compensation for any harm I could sustain as a result of taking part in this study, as an example of Exculpatory language where traits of sacrifice are described.
The example correctly illustrates this language as it states that participation in the research is completely optional, doing so represents a limitation of any potential legal action for damage arising from it.
Therefore, option B is appropriate.
Learn more about exculpatory language, here:
https://brainly.com/question/13451025
#SPJ2
Which of the following ideological types favor government activism in the economic realm?
a. liberals and populists
b. populists and libertarians
c. conservatives and liberals
d. populists and conservatives
Answer:
the answer is A.
Explanation:
Liberals and populists are the ideological types that favor government activism in the economic realm, supporting increased regulation and social programs to benefit the common people.
The ideological types that favor government activism in the economic realm can be broadly described as those who believe that the government should have a role in regulating the economy and providing services to its citizens.
In this context, liberals often support more government intervention in the economy with policies that could include higher taxes and more spending on social programs, whereas populists may support these types of economic interventions as well, especially if they feel such measures would benefit the common people and reduce the power of elitists. Therefore, the answer to which ideological types favor government activism in the economic realm is a. liberals and populists.
Strengths and weaknesses of the articles of confederation
Answer:
Quick draft of what would become constitution
Left out a lot, like individual rights. Wrote very quickly.
Difference between first and second degree murder
There are certain modes of governing the people which will succeed. There are others which will not. The idea of consolidation is abhorrent to the people of this country."
—William Grayson, 1788
Which of the following is a true statement about this quote?
1) It represents a Federalist viewpoint on the relative power of the central government.
2) It represents an Anti-Federalist viewpoint on the relative power of the central government.
3) It represents a Federalist viewpoint on the need for protection of individual liberties.
4) It represents an Anti-Federalist viewpoint on the need for protection of individual liberties.
Answer:
2) It represents an Anti-Federalist viewpoint on the relative power of the central government.
Explanation:
As we know the Federalists spread a series of pamphlets called “The Federalist” as a way to spread the ideas of Federalism and convince the states that did not agree with the ideas of federalism to ratify the Constitution.
Following the same idea, the Anti-Federalists - the ones that did not agree with the federalist system - started to write and spread pamphlets as well.
William Grayson wrote one of them and this is an excerpt from the Anti-Federalist n.2. The Anti-Federalists opposed the idea of a strong central government because they believed that the Constitution did not create a system that would prevent this Central Government from becoming a tyranny such as the one the colonies ran away from. This is way Grayson argues that the Constitution would not meliorate the system that was already working by the Articles of Confederation.
The option that is a true statement about this quote is that it represents an Anti-Federalist viewpoint on the relative power of the central government.
According to the Anti-Federalists, a strong central government will not be able to reflect the need of the people. They also believed that they would bring about tyranny.They feared that the wealthy people will dominate a strong central government. They wanted a central government that was weak and where everyone had equal opportunities.They encouraged democracy and believed that too much power will be given to the strong central government and they didn't want this to occur.In conclusion, the correct option is 2.
Read related link on:
https://brainly.com/question/7045438
Which organization is a multiagency coordination center generally staffed by ESFs in anticipation of or immediately following an incident?
A. Disaster Response Center
B. Regional Response Coordination Center
C. Strategic Information and Operations Center
D. Federal Operations Center
Answer: B. Regional Response Coordination Center
Explanation:
Regional Response Coordination Centers operated by ESFs or emergency support function. These facilities provide recovery support and responses to the states and tribal government within the scope of regional jurisdictions.
These support in disaster situations and ensure the translocation of resources in the disaster affected region.
The strength and no of staff members participate in regional response coordination center depends upon the severity and condition of the disaster situation.
Difference between joint tenancy and tenancy in common
Answer & Explanation: Joint tenancy differs from tenancy in common when there is a death or when one owner wants to sell their share.
Tenants in common: are able to individually sell their ownership in the property. That means that owner A could sell his 50-percent interest while owner B retains her half. The same holds true for inheritances. If owner A passes away, his ownership rights are inherited by his heirs, while owner B would continue to own her portion of the property.
Therefore a tenancy in common can lead to some sticky situations where co-owners of a property don't know each other well or at all.
Whereas in a Joint tenancy when a joint tenant dies the other remaining joint tenants get the decease tenants's interest (eg. ownership) in the property. Also, a joint tenancy allow owners to sell their interests. If one owner sells, the tenancy is converted to a tenancy in common.
Joint tenancy and tenancy in common are two forms of property ownership with different rights and implications. In joint tenancy, all owners have equal shares and the right of survivorship, while in tenancy in common, owners have separate shares that can be sold or inherited.
Explanation:Joint tenancy and tenancy in common are two forms of property ownership. In joint tenancy, each owner has an equal and undivided interest in the property, with the right of survivorship. This means that if one owner dies, their share automatically passes to the remaining owners. In tenancy in common, each owner has a distinct and separate share of the property, which they can sell, transfer, or leave to heirs.
For example, if two friends own a property as joint tenants and one of them passes away, the surviving friend will automatically become the sole owner of the property. On the other hand, if two siblings own a property as tenants in common and one of them passes away, their share of the property will not automatically pass to the other sibling. Instead, it will be inherited according to the deceased sibling's will or the laws of intestate succession.
Learn more about Property Ownership here:https://brainly.com/question/31079072
#SPJ12
Which of the following best describes the principle of informed consent as described in the Belmont Report?
A. Voluntariness, risk/benefit assessment, selection of subjects.
B. Comprehension, conflicts of interest, risk/benefit ratio.
C. Risk/benefit assessment, justification of research, comprehension.
D. Information, comprehension, voluntariness.
Answer:
Information, comprehension, voluntariness.- D.
The principle of Belmont Report is best described by D) Information, comprehension, voluntariness.
Explanation:The Belmont report is an ethical document in the health science department meant to protect concerned parties in research and trials. It outlines three principles namely respect for persons, beneficence, and justice and also states the main areas of application.
Respect for persons means treating all the participant with respect and providing information required to make appropriate decisions. Beneficence means the research must not take precedence over participants' safety. Therefore, it encourages safety and discourages harm of any sort. Justice describes fairness, in all the areas that concern the research and treating participants equally.
Before a sport manager is liable for negligence, the plaintiff must show that the sport manager owed the plaintiff a duty of care. A legal duty of care arises from which of the following origins?
A: From a relationship inherent in a particular situation
B: From a voluntary assumption of the duty of care
C: From a duty mandated by a law
D: All of the above
Answer:
D: All of the above
Explanation:
Before a sport manager is liable for negligence, the plaintiff must show that the sport manager owed the plaintiff a duty of care. A legal duty of care arises from a relationship inherent in a particular situation, a voluntary assumption of the duty of care, and a duty mandated by a law.
What body has the power to ratify treaties
Answer:
The Senate has the power to ratify treaties.
The Senate, in the United States, has the responsibility to ratify treaties. This is directed by the U.S. Constitution under the Treaty Clause. The President negotiates the treaties and the Senate reviews and approves (ratifies) them.
Explanation:In the United States, the Senate has the power to ratify treaties. This is stipulated in the U.S. Constitution, specifically in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. This clause, often known as the 'Treaty Clause', provides that the President '... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...'. Therefore, while the President negotiates international treaties, it is the responsibility of the Senate to review and ratify, or approve, these treaties.
Learn more about Senate's power to ratify treaties here:https://brainly.com/question/33448482
#SPJ6