Yes it is constitutional, the police searched his home without a warrant while he was not in the state on a suspicion that he had a meth lab in his home. They found a ghost AK-47 with bloody fingerprints in his home. That is illegal and a felony but because they searched his home with no warrant or a case being built to find that AK-47 the man had his rights to not be charged.
Considering the legal practice and standards, it is <u>false</u> that in a case involving internet transactions, jurisdiction is proper only when the defendant conducts substantial business in the jurisdiction online.
<h3>What is Jurisdiction in online transactions?</h3>
Jurisdiction online transaction is a legal issue that seeks to solve or justify court jurisdiction over a case or dispute involving a foreign defendant.
In this case, the normal principle state that having a foreign defendant access a website is not satisfactory to establish jurisdiction.
Therefore, for a court to justify exercising jurisdiction over a foreign defendant in Internet-based transactions, there must be multiple contacts in addition to the accessibility of a website.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that the correct answer is "False."
Learn more about Jurisdiction of court here: brainly.com/question/10377896
Answer:
True
Explanation:
The physical presence of an out-of-state party in a particular state meets the required minimum contacts prerequisites and establishes personal jurisdiction.
The fact that the Fed is the "lender of last resort" means that it grants loans to banks when they experience financial difficulty which threaten their collapse.
<h3 /><h3>What does a lender of last resort do?</h3>
When banks are going through financial difficulty that is bad enough to threaten their existence, they will turn to the Fed.
This is because the Fed is considered the lender of last resort and loans money to banks to prevent a system collapse. They only step in however, whn things are bad.
Find out more on the lender of last resort at brainly.com/question/21477237
#SPJ1
This statement is true.
In a market with a small number of sellers, known as an oligopoly, each seller's decisions have an impact on the outcomes of the other sellers.
Although there isn't a single theory to explain oligopoly, economists will occasionally employ a model known as the prisoner's dilemma to explain how oligopolistic market outcomes arise.
The prisoner's dilemma is a "game" that illustrates the advantages and dangers of cross-pollination among oligopolistic businesses.
A Nash equilibrium results from a prisoner's dilemma, where each player performs the best they can given what the other players are doing.
Oligopolist businesses frequently face the prisoners' dilemma, where they must choose between engaging in aggressive market-capture competition at the detriment of their rivals or engaging in "cooperation" and coexisting with the rival with the market share they already control.
To know more about oligopoly, visit:
brainly.com/question/3005866
#SPJ4
