Answer:
Rather, Congress deemed them necessary and established them using power granted from the Constitution. Section 2 of Article III gives the Supreme Court judicial power over “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution”, meaning that the Supreme Court's main job is to decide if laws are constitutional.
Answer:
Market share liability
Explanation:
To understand the doctrine of market share liability, it is important to first know the meaning of market share itself.
Market share refers to the percentage of the overall sales of a particular industry that is generated by a company. It calculated by dividing the total sales of the firm during a specified period by the aggregate sales of the industry during the same period. This gives an idea what the size of a company is compared with its competitors in the industry.
From the question, market share of BDC for that drug i Ohio is believed to be 40% when the mother of the plaintiff was taking it.
Market share liability is a legal doctrine unique to the law of the U.S. which gives an opportunity to a plaintiff who sustained an injury from a fungible product to establish a prima facie case against the product based on the market share of the manufacturers of that product, regardless of whether or not knows the actual producer of the product.
Therefore, the state of the plaintiff follows the doctrine of market share liability if he is able to collect $40,000 which from BDC out of the $100,000.
Note:
The $40,000 is obtained after applying 40% market share of BDC to the $100,000 total damages.
I wish you the best.
Answer: It is not.
Explanation:
The U.S. Constitution has a clause known as the Supremacy Clause that places the Constitution of the United States as well as all Federal law that are not in violation of the Constitution above State laws and Constitutions.
This is why Federal Voting rights were able to prevail over the State Constitutions in the South after the Civil War.
For this reason, the Federal Statute enacted by Congress will take precedence over the Wisconsin State Constitutional Provision.
oh cool how was it there?
Answer:
Put simply, a criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. The agreement itself is the crime, but at least one co-conspirator must take an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under the federal conspiracy statute: The agreement by two or more persons is the essence of the crime.
Explanation:
Our question is this: What makes an act one of entrapment? We make a standard distinction between legal entrapment, which is carried out by parties acting in their capacities as (or as deputies of) law-enforcement agents, and civil entrapment, which is not. We aim to provide a definition of entrapment that covers both and which, for reasons we explain, does not settle questions of permissibility and culpability. We explain, compare, and contrast two existing definitions of legal entrapment to commit a crime that possess this neutrality. We point out some problems with the extensional correctness of these definitions and propose a new definition that resolves these problems. We then extend our definition to provide a more general definition of entrapment, encompassing both civil and legal cases. Our definition is, we believe, closer to being extensionally correct and will, we hope, provide a clearer basis for future discussions about the ethics of entrapment than do the definitions upon which it improves.
