Answer:
Yes <em>and</em> no.
Patrick <em>would</em> be liable for negligence in <em>allowing</em> the hail damage, as he <em>failed</em> to fulfill his duty of taking reasonable care of the vehicle.
However, he would<em> not</em> be responsible for the hot oil and gravel nicks.
Courts applying the Davis exception most often summarize it with phrases such as "ongoing emergency" or "emergency situation." When police are responding to an ongoing emergency, their motive is to ensure the safety of all concerned, not to collect evidence. The Supreme Court ruled in Davis that statements elicited by police while responding to an ongoing emergency are not testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause.
Testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:
-ITlooks like the kind of testimony that would be offered at trial in aid of prosecution;
-It is made when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no ongoing emergency; and
-The primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution.
The Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution protects the right of a criminal defendant to be confronted by his or her accusers in Court and to cross-examine any testimony that they may offer. The admission of hearsay (an out-of-court statement) – even if admissible under an exception to the rule against hearsay – can be in direct conflict with the right of Confrontation.
On the other hand, “non-testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:
-It is made primarily for the purpose of assisting police to meet an ongoing emergency; or
-It was made primarily for a purpose other than discovering, establishing or proving past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.
To learn more about Testimony visit here ; brainly.com/question/29244222?referrer=searchResultssearchResults
#SPJ4
Answer:
a. financial statement disclosure requirements
d. requirement of monitoring contracts with foreign agents
Explanation:
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was an act that was passed in 1977 and received two amendments in 1988 and 1998. The act aims to prohibit companies and their officers from influencing foreign officials with payments and rewards - bribery. The act also has a series of accounting requirements that are designed to ensure that shareholders have an accurate view of the company’s finances.
Answer:
It goes to a committee for consideration.
Explanation:
After a measure passes in the House, it goes to the Senate for consideration. This includes consideration by a Senate committee or subcommittee, similar to the path of a bill in the House. A bill must pass both bodies in the same form before it can be presented to the President for signature into law.
