The answer to this question is larceny
A larceny is a form of crime that happens when someone stole another person's property. In this particular case, Olivia fully knew that that ring does not belong to her and sitting on another women's desk. When she decided to knowingly pick that ring and does not put it back, she just committed a theft.
The difference in both Historian point of perspective was that Historian A believed the American Revolution was causes by colonist greed. Historian B believed the American Revolution was caused by the unfair taxe policies in the colonies.
Answer:
a blended component unit
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it seems that the public financing corporation should be reported as a blended component unit. This term refers to a component that is completely intertwined with the government that is in term is part of that government, or in this case the city. Seeing as the public financing corporation is created and managed by the city, it can be said that it is part of the city.
I think the summary judgement would be inappropriate in this case
Summary judgement is entered by the court if the plaintiff does not have sufficient evidence that the defendants actually do what they're accused of before moving to trial.
On this case, There is a strong proof that peoples restaurant is aware of Hoag's alcoholism : <u>intoxicated</u>
This mean that sabo can proof that the bar know hoag is an alcoholic and had served enough amount to hoag to get him intoxicated.
This mean that Sabo's case is strong enough to be brought to the trial. keep in mind that Sabo is unlikely to win the trial since the restaurant does not directly involved in the accident. but we can definitely say that summary judgement would be inappropriate in this case.
