The statement is true as the court reversed itself as the New Jersey court did regarding automobile search being the right decision to prevent crimes.
Stare decisis is Latin for "to hold fast to what has been decided." If a prior court has made a ruling on the same or a closely comparable matter when a court is faced with a legal argument, the court will follow that precedent when making its conclusion.
On September 24, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld a decision that allowed police to search cars without first obtaining a warrant. No state rule or subjectivity is present in this situation, negating the need for such state-specific judgments. The court made the correct judgment to go in the opposite direction as the New Jersey court did with regard to car searches.
However, as in-state v. Witt, a new jersey supreme court case discussed in class, where a court will reverse itself as the new jersey court did regarding automobile searches stands TRUE.
To know more about the rule of stare decisis, refer to this link:
brainly.com/question/4997437
#SPJ4
Answer:
c. Dawn would have been obligated to assist Sarah under the European bystander rule
Explanation:
The bystander rule is a type of rule which states that a person generally has no legal obligation to rescue, save or assist another (victim) who is in danger or at risk, even if the society imposes a moral responsibility to act as such.
This is known as the American bystander rule and is opposite from the European rule which mandates intervention and assistance, the European version of this rule is called the Good Samaritan rule
so under the European bystander/Good Samaritan rule, Dawn would have been obligated to assist Sarah.
The articles of confederation
We will see that there are really only three possible perspectives on the human person in terms of his place in the cosmos: from the materialist standpoint, from the outlook of the human mind, and finally from the vantage point of the human heart.
