Briggs doesn't think the police really investigated the crime

Allendale Mutual Insurance Co. v. Excess Insurance Co. Limited is an insurance law case that dealt with the issue of how to allocate insurance coverage when multiple insurance policies cover the same loss.

The case involved a construction project where a subcontractor caused damage to a building, and the general contractor's insurance and the subcontractor's insurance policies provided coverage for the loss. The issue was whether the general contractor's or subcontractor's policies should be responsible for the loss. The court held that the general contractor's policy was primary and the subcontractor's policy was in excess.

This meant that the general contractor's policy had to be exhausted before the subcontractor's policy would be triggered. The case established the principle of "other insurance" clauses, which are provisions commonly found in insurance policies that address how multiple policies will interact when more than one policy covers the same loss.

To learn more about insurance, visit:

https://brainly.com/question/27822778

#SPJ4

This is true, The accountability for maintenance of employee fitness and security is with all, Employees, Employers, Government.

Explanation: OSHA establishes coaching programs, develops mandatory job protection and fitness standards, and encourages to put in force them.

Safety is the business and responsibility of each worker and can be executed via appropriate education, training, use of protective equipment and by following security rules, regulations, standards, and laws. Each worker is accountable for grasp and practising splendid protection procedures.

Learn more about Employers rights  here:

FALSE, The mediator in a mediation does not have the power to force the parties to come to a settlement. The role of the mediator is to facilitate communication and negotiation between the parties in an attempt to reach a mutually acceptable resolution.

The mediator can offer suggestions and propose solutions, but ultimately it is up to the parties to agree to the terms of the settlement.

Mediation is a voluntary process, and either party can choose to end the process at any time. However, the mediator can encourage the parties to continue negotiating and explore different options until they reach a settlement that meets their needs and interests.

To know more about mediator visit:

https://brainly.com/question/31131551

#SPJ11

Based on the facts given, Jerry may be able to bring a lawsuit against his former employer for defamation. Defamation is a legal claim that arises when one person communicates a false and harmful statement about another person to a third party.

The correct answer is defamation.

In this case, Jerry's boss may have made false statements about his job performance to the employer, ultimately leading to Jerry's termination. However, whether Jerry can successfully bring a lawsuit against his former employer for defamation will depend on several factors, including the specific details of the false statements made about him, the extent to which they harmed his reputation, and the legal requirements for proving a defamation claim in the relevant jurisdiction.

It is also worth noting that in some cases, an employer may be held liable for the actions of its employees if those actions were taken within the scope of their employment. In other cases, an employee may be sued directly for their actions. Therefore, Jerry may want to consult with a qualified attorney to determine the most appropriate course of action and to assess the strength of his potential legal claim.

To learn more about defamation, visit:

https://brainly.com/question/31538290

#SPJ4

Intentional physical contact without consent may constitute a) battery. Battery occurs when there is unlawful and intentional physical contact with another person without their consent.

It can be a punch, a slap, or any form of physical contact that results in injury or harm to the other person. Assault, on the other hand, is the intentional threat or attempt to cause physical harm to another person. It is the fear of harm rather than the actual harm itself.

Defamation, duress, and false imprisonment do not involve physical contact, but rather involve harm caused by words, coercion, or confinement, respectively.

To know more about physical contact visit:

https://brainly.com/question/29567827

#SPJ11

No, DFC does not prepay the OC Expert's deposition fee. DFC will invoice the citizen for the OC Expert's fee, and the citizen is responsible for making the payment directly to the OC Expert.

Fee is a payment made to a person or organization for services rendered. It is typically charged as a flat rate or hourly rate, and can be paid either in advance or after the service has been provided. Fees can be paid for a variety of services, such as legal advice, medical treatments, or educational courses. They can also be paid to an individual or organization for the use of goods, property, or other resources. Fees are an important source of income for many businesses and organizations, and in most cases, payment of the fee is required before the service can be rendered.

To learn more about fee

https://brainly.com/question/29578294

#SPJ1

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) enforces the Wagner, Taft-Hartley, and Landrum-Griffin Acts because these laws protect workers' rights and regulate the activities of unions and employers in the United States.

The correct answer is National Labor Relations Board.

The NLRB comprises five members appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. The term of each member is five years, and no more than three members may be from the same political party. The NLRB has several responsibilities under the NLRA, including conducting elections to determine whether workers wish to be represented by a union and certifying the results of those elections.

The NLRB also investigates and remedies unfair labour practices by employers and unions, such as interfering with or discriminating against employees seeking to organize a union, engaging in unlawful strikes or picketing, or failing to bargain in good faith with a union.

To learn more about National Labor Relations Board, visit:

https://brainly.com/question/7202765

#SPJ4

O transfers a sum "in trust for A for life, then to A's first child to reach 25." A has no child age 25 or older. There is no validating life; the contingent remainder is void. You cannot prove that A's first child to reach 25 will do so within 21 years after A's death: the remainder is valid.

The step to determine whether the given interest might not vest within the perpetuity period of lives in being plus 21 years." The Rule Against Perpetuities is a rule that strikes down contingent interests that might vest too remotely. The essential thing to grasp about the Rule is that it is a rule of logical proof.

What we are looking for is a person who will enable us to prove that the contingent interest will vest or fail within the life, or at the death, of that person, or within 21 years after that person's death. This person, if found, is called the validating life.

Learn more about contingent, here:

https://brainly.com/question/30478373

#SPJ4

The Citizens United case decided that corporations enjoy the same First Amendment rights to free speech as individuals.

The decision was made on January 21, 2010. In the context of the case, the ruling allowed corporations to engage in political spending without limits, as restricting their spending was considered a violation of their First Amendment rights to free speech.

This means that corporations can spend unlimited money on political campaigns to support or oppose candidates, as long as they do it independently and do not coordinate with the candidates directly. The decision was based on the principle that the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment, applies to corporations as well as individuals. However, the case did not address whether or not corporations may vote or have a duty to protect their employees from discrimination.

Learn more about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) : https://brainly.com/question/29361585.

#SPJ11

An expert witness may not testify that X "could be" the cause of Y.  False

An expert witness may testify that X "could be" the cause of Y, as long as their testimony is based on a reasonable degree of scientific or professional certainty. However, the use of the phrase "could be" implies a level of uncertainty, which could be challenged by opposing counsel during cross-examination.

In general, expert witnesses are allowed to provide opinions and conclusions based on their expertise and specialized knowledge, as long as their opinions are based on reliable principles and methods. They are expected to provide testimony that is relevant, reliable, and helpful to the jury or judge in understanding the facts of the case. Ultimately, it is up to the trier of fact to evaluate the credibility and weight of the expert's testimony.

Learn more about expert witness

https://brainly.com/question/29596349

#SPJ4

Black women received the right to vote in federal elections in 1965 with the passage of the Voting Rights Act. This critical law outlawed racial bias in electoral procedures.

The correct answer is 1965.

Before the Voting Rights Act, many states had implemented discriminatory practices such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and other requirements that disproportionately affected Black voters. These practices were used to deny Black women and men the right to vote and other forms of disenfranchisement, such as violent intimidation and threats.

The Voting Rights Act was a critical triumph for the civil rights movement. It paved the way for more excellent political representation and participation by Black women and other marginalized groups.

To know more about right to vote, visit:

https://brainly.com/question/29759734

#SPJ4

Judicial involvement with human rights groups makes them more assertive by providing them with a platform to seek redress or justice for violations of their rights.

The judiciary is empowered to interpret the law, to review administrative decisions, and to supervise the enforcement of human rights protection to the fullest extent. This enables human rights groups to bring legal challenges against alleged violations and to seek remedies that are in line with international standards and practices.

Judicial involvement also helps to ensure that the right to a fair trial is respected when cases are taken to court. Furthermore, judicial involvement can provide human rights groups with the necessary legal backing to challenge government actions and policies that are in violation of human rights principles. This makes them more assertive in their activism and can ultimately lead to greater protection of human rights.

Know more about human rights protection here

https://brainly.com/question/28392863#

#SPJ11

In the federal court system, the district courts have original jurisdiction over most cases, while in the state court system, trial courts of general jurisdiction typically have original jurisdiction.

In the federal court system, the district courts have original jurisdiction over most cases, including federal criminal cases, civil cases arising under federal law, and cases involving diversity of citizenship. The Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over a limited set of cases, such as disputes between states or cases involving foreign ambassadors or public ministers.

In the state court system, preliminary courts of general purview commonly have a unique ward over most cases, including criminal and common cases. In certain states, specific courts, for example, family courts or probate courts, may likewise have unique wards over particular sorts of cases. Re-appraising courts for the most part don't have a unique purview, however, rather hear requests from lower courts.

Learn more about federal court:

https://brainly.com/question/525772

#SPJ4

The defense of constructive eviction may excuse a tenant's obligation to pay rent if the landlord has breached a material obligation under the lease, rendering the premises uninhabitable.

In this case, T is asserting that L failed to control excessive noise made by neighboring tenants  obligation  , making the premises unlivable, and resulting in constructive eviction.

The success of this defense will depend on whether the noise was truly excessive and whether L had an obligation to control it under the constructive lease.

If the court finds that the noise was excessive and that L had an obligation  to control it under the lease constructive, then T may be excused from paying rent for the remainder of the lease term.

However, if the court finds that the noise was not excessive or that L did not have an obligation to control it under the lease, then T will be liable for the unpaid rent.

Learn more about Liablisation here

https://brainly.com/question/30577585

#SPJ4

There is no assault if  there is no fear of harm. Option C

An assault is defined as an intentional act that causes a person to fear immediate harm or offensive contact Assault is a crime that can be committed even if there is no physical harm, mental harm, or fear of harm..

For example, if someone threatens to punch another person and raises their fist, that can be considered assault, even if no physical contact is made. The key element is the intent to cause fear or harm, not the actual occurrence of harm.

Learn more about assault at https://brainly.com/question/25153918

#SPJ1

Rule 704 is broken if an expert testimony that a certain amount of drugs was kept with the intention of distributing them. This statement is true.

Rule 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of expert testimony regarding ultimate issues in a case. The rule states that "an opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue." However, an expert may not provide an opinion on whether a defendant had a particular mental state or intent at the time of the alleged offense.

In drug cases, it is common for the prosecution to call a law enforcement officer or forensic expert to testify about the number of drugs possessed by the defendant and whether it was consistent with personal use or indicative of intent to distribute. However, if the expert testifies that the number of drugs in the defendant's possession was sufficient for distribution, this could be interpreted as an impermissible opinion on the defendant's intent or mental state.

To avoid violating Rule 704, an expert in a drug case should not explicitly state that the defendant possessed drugs for the purpose of distribution. Instead, they should limit their testimony to the physical characteristics of the drugs and the typical patterns of use and distribution associated with those drugs.

To learn more about expert testimony

https://brainly.com/question/3635812

#SPJ4

Under the general rule, communications about legal services must be truthful and not misleading. This means that lawyers cannot make false or unsubstantiated claims about their services or their experience.

They also cannot create an unjustified expectation about the outcome of a case. Additionally, lawyers must ensure that their communications do not create confusion or misunderstandings about their services or fees. They must also be mindful of the confidentiality of their clients and cannot reveal any information that would compromise their client's interests. In summary, communications about legal services must be honest, accurate, and clear, and must not violate any ethical rules or standards.

For more such questions on lawyers , click on:

https://brainly.com/question/29731616

#SPJ11

The additional Medicare tax on employees is a tax that applies to all wages, regardless of the employee's income level.

It is calculated in the same manner regardless of marital status and is 0.9 percent of wages over a threshold amount. The threshold amount is $200,000 for single filers, $250,000 for joint filers, and $125,000 for married taxpayers filing separately.

This tax is in addition to the regular Medicare tax, which is 2.9 percent of wages. The additional Medicare tax is withheld from employee paychecks and is paid to the IRS.

Employers are responsible for calculating and withholding the additional Medicare tax from their employees’ wages and depositing it to the IRS. It is important to note that the employer pays none of the additional Medicare tax. It is entirely the responsibility of the employee.

Know more about wages here

https://brainly.com/question/13847060#

#SPJ11

In the context of Skinner's operant conditioning theory, positive reinforcer, negative reinforcer, and punishment are all forms of consequence that can affect the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated in the future.

Positive reinforcer refers to a consequence that increases the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated by adding a desirable stimulus. For example, suppose a student receives praise from their teacher for answering a question correctly. In that case, the positive reinforcement of the praise will likely increase the likelihood of the student answering questions correctly.

A negative reinforcer refers to a consequence that increases the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated by removing an unpleasant stimulus. For example, suppose a student wears a jacket to avoid feeling cold. In that case, the negative reinforcement of removing the unpleasant stimulus of feeling cold will likely increase the likelihood of the student putting on a jacket in the future.

On the other hand, punishment is a consequence that decreases the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated by adding an unpleasant stimulus or removing a desirable one. For example, if a parent scolds a child for hitting their sibling, the punishment is intended to decrease the likelihood of the child hitting their sibling.

To learn more about Skinner, visit:

https://brainly.com/question/14829851

#SPJ4

In most cases, sound violations at mass gatherings are enforced by local law enforcement or code enforcement officers.

These officials are responsible for ensuring that the event organizers comply with local noise ordinances and regulations. They may use sound level meters to measure the decibel levels of the event and issue warnings or citations if necessary.

However, it is important to note that enforcement methods can vary depending on the location and the specific regulations in place. In some cases, event organizers may be required to obtain permits or hire professional sound engineers to ensure that the event stays within acceptable noise levels. Ultimately, the goal is to balance the needs of the event organizers with the rights of nearby residents to enjoy a peaceful and quiet environment.

For more such questions on law enforcement, click on:

https://brainly.com/question/29422434

#SPJ11

No life estate precedes the interest given to A's children. The executory interest in A's children is void. The invalidating chain of events is that A may have another child after O 's death, and that child may reach age 25 more than 21 years after the death of A and A's three children who were alive at O 's death.

For a class gift to be vested under the Rule, the class must be closed and all conditions precedent for each and every member of the class must be satisfied, within the perpetuities period. Thus suppose a gift "to A for life, then to A's child, and A has living one child, B. B's remainder is vested subject to open, but it is not vested under the Rule Against Perpetuities until A dies and all of A's children are then in existence and identified. But because the remainder beneficiaries will all be ascertained at A's death, the remainder is valid.

Class closing rule: The possibility that more members may be added to a class at a remote point in the future creates a potential violation of the Rule Against Perpetuities for some class gifts.

Learn more about child, here:

https://brainly.com/question/28378740

#SPJ4

The state of the title is given as

A: Life estate

B: vested remainder in fee simple absolute subject to complete divestment and subject to open

C and D: Executory interest, shifting

Any payment, including those in fee simple or property in forever, or any State lease, whenever authorized or given by or on the authority of the Crown, is considered to have a state title.

The legal ownership of a piece of property or other asset is shown by a title. A title may represent the right to ownership of tangible or intangible assets, such as a trademark, or real property.

Learn more about the estate, here:

https://brainly.com/question/30565515

#SPJ4

A servant leader is someone who puts their team before themselves and puts the team’s needs above their own. They focus on the success of the team rather than their own benefit.

Typical behaviors of a servant leader include attempting to resolve all employee problems and concerns regardless of the situation, being willing to help out wherever needed, setting idealistic goals, and displaying honest and ethical behavior.

This type of leader often works to create a supportive environment where employees feel respected and valued, and a sense of community is fostered.

They are also likely to be good listeners and offer constructive feedback and guidance. A servant leader puts the needs of their team first and works to ensure everyone is working towards the same goals.

Know more about environment  here

https://brainly.com/question/30821114#

#SPJ11

Yes, verbal contracts valid. Unless they violate the statute of frauds. Option D is the correct answer.

Legally speaking, verbal agreements can frequently be just as binding as written ones. Although they could be very challenging to regulate, you should take solace in the knowledge that there are relevant state and federal laws that can support the enforcement of such contracts and safeguard your legal rights. Even so, placing your agreement in paper is still the best approach to ensure that all parties are protected. Option D is the correct answer.

A sort of agreement involving two or more parties that is established orally rather than through a written document is known as a verbal contract. Regardless of whether an oral agreement comprises all of the components of a contract or not, there are situations when a physical written contract is required in order for the agreement to be enforceable. Option D is the correct answer.

Learn more about Contracts here:

https://brainly.com/question/5746834

#SPJ4

The sine qua non rule is also known as the "but for" rule. This rule is a legal test used to determine causation in tort law. So the correct answer is (c) but for rule.

It asks whether the harm would have occurred "but for" the defendant's actions. In other words, if the harm would not have occurred if the defendant had not acted, then the defendant's actions are considered to be the cause of the harm.  The Sine qua non rule is a fundamental principle in tort law that helps to establish a causal link between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injuries or damages.

Learn more about  legal test

https://brainly.com/question/30652728

#SPJ4

A delict happens when one party commits a incorrect towards another. The fundamental factors of delict are conduct, wrongfulness, fault, causation and damage. Wrongfulness or unlawfulness: conduct which is objectively unreasonable and barring  lawful justification.

The criterion of wrongfulness in the end depends on a judicial determination of whether, assuming all the other elements of delictual legal responsibility are present, it would be practical to impose liability on a defendant for the damages flowing from precise conduct.

Van der Walt and Midgley (Delict 145 fn 4) refer to these three cases as nicely as Lampert v Hefer (supra), as situations where the defence of volenti non suit iniuria has been successfully raised (since 1928).

Learn more about wrongfulness here:

Larry has committed two separate crimes: burglary and arson.

Burglary is a crime that involves the unlawful entry into a building or other structure with the intent to commit a felony or theft. In this case, Larry entered the local pharmacy unlawfully with the intent to steal controlled substances, which is a felony. Therefore, he has committed the crime of burglary.

Arson is a separate crime that involves the willful and malicious burning of someone else's property. In this case, Larry set fire to the building in an attempt to cover up his burglary. By doing so, he not only caused damage to the pharmacy building, but he also put people's lives in danger. Therefore, he has committed the crime of arson.

Larry may face separate charges for each of these crimes, and the penalties for burglary and arson can be significant, including fines, imprisonment, and other consequences.

To know more about burglary here:

https://brainly.com/question/30777991

#SPJ4

The veracity of a child's testimony at trial may be proven by an expert witness. This statement is true.

In some jurisdictions, experts are allowed to testify on the reliability and credibility of a child witness's testimony. Such experts may include psychologists, psychiatrists, or social workers who have experience working with children who have been victims of abuse or trauma.

These experts may use various methods to evaluate the child's testimony, such as conducting interviews or administering psychological tests. However, in other jurisdictions, expert testimony on a child witness's credibility may be limited or excluded altogether, as it is ultimately the job of the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses.

Furthermore, it is important to note that even if an expert testifies to the truthfulness of a child's testimony, it is ultimately up to the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witness. The expert's testimony may be considered along with other factors, such as the child's age, maturity, and ability to recall events accurately.

To learn more about testimony

https://brainly.com/question/29244222

#SPJ4

Eric portrays an autocratic style of leadership. This type of leadership is when a leader takes decisions without taking into account the opinion of his team members or subordinates.

In making the decision to shift the headquarters of the organization, Eric did not consult anyone and simply took his board members' consent for granted.

Autocratic leadership is generally seen as an outdated style, as it does not involve allowing members of the team to have their opinions considered or to be involved in the decision-making process.

It can lead to resentment from team members and has been linked to lower levels of motivation and creativity. Therefore, it is important for Eric to consider the opinions of his team and involve them in the decision-making process in order to ensure that his decisions are accepted and supported by all.

Know more about organization here

https://brainly.com/question/13278945#

#SPJ11