1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
dem82 [27]
3 years ago
13

What is the highest rank in police jobs?

Law
1 answer:
EastWind [94]3 years ago
3 0
D. chief of police :)
You might be interested in
The president serves which of the following roles in the U.S. political system?
Alja [10]

Answer:

Commander in chief and head of the judicial branch

Explanation:

3 0
2 years ago
Why is brainly deleting questions???​
alexandr402 [8]

Answer:

that is what I'm wondering!!! I clicks notification from brainly, boom, the question is gone

7 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
WILL MARK BRAINLIEST!!! 100 POINTS!!! For this project, you have the opportunity to be the author and write brief newspaper arti
LUCKY_DIMON [66]

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]

3 0
2 years ago
When did the Secret Service formally begin to provide protection to the president and his family?
alekssr [168]

Answer:

Secret service

Explanation:

Since 1901, every President from Theodore Roosevelt on has been protected by the Secret Service. In 1917, threats against the President became a felony (a serious crime in the eyes of the law), and Secret Service protection was broadened to include all members of the First Family

7 0
2 years ago
Evidence is:
nirvana33 [79]
the answer is definitely c or d, but im leaning more towards C
5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • When Congress passes a law, it can be found in which publication? a. United States Congressional Studies b. United States Statut
    15·1 answer
  • I need to write an apology cuz i prank called a pizza place to my friends house and they told my parents i was wondering if this
    12·2 answers
  • Among adolescents and adults, alcohol use is involved in up to 70% of deaths
    8·2 answers
  • The types of cases a court can hear is referred to as its
    14·2 answers
  • Help me answer all of these i’ll give brainlist !
    12·1 answer
  • Which of the following is an initial report? *
    15·1 answer
  • You should drive slowly in town because if you hit a pedestrian while driving 30 mph
    13·1 answer
  • How can countries adapt to population decline?
    9·1 answer
  • Discuss how Madison managed to market the Constitution.​
    12·1 answer
  • Look at Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!