Answer:
Most likely, the victim could have been followed home from the grocery store. or the victim was murdered by a neighborhood thief who snuck in to get the drop on her. or a recent lover or family member who was seeking revenge. the door indicates that there was forced entry, so she had already been home from the store, but not for too long cause she had yet to put the groceries away. the killer wasn't worried about leaving the weapon, so it's either a lousy killer or a killer who wants to be caught. we will rule out the possibility of a robbery. She probably knew her killer given the facts that we have.
Answer:
i think it is “A preponderance of evidence”
Explanation:
hope this is right...
Answer:in my opinion some of the problems can be resolved by haing more markets be run by the country so that they can have proper insurance and so the taxtes help flow back into the country.
Explanation:if u have insurance what u lose u can at least get some back and the taxes help the countrys financial problems wich also help u.
Answer:
I don't think Kimberly can sue but the city and the car she it can sue and the city could repay Kimberly. But not Kim only can sue her but she could testify against her if she saw her neglect of careful driving.
The question is incomplete. This is the complete question:
The state trial court in Nevada has issued a decision in which a party has been found guilty of fraud. Should a case arise in the future with the same basic fact situation, Nevada courts will be bound by precedent to follow the reasoning and decision of this prior decision.
Answer:
No, should a case arise in the future with the same basic fact situation, Nevada state trial courts will not be bound by precedent to follow the reasoning and decision of this prior decision, because the decisions of trial courts do not use precedents or rulings established in previous legal cases to arrive at decisions on future disputes involving different or entirely new parties.
