1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
RideAnS [48]
3 years ago
8

Name two main reasons people chose to come to the American colonies.

Law
2 answers:
USPshnik [31]3 years ago
7 0
B. And D. As they wanted new freedom and a nee change!! They had long winters and short summers!
RUDIKE [14]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

it would be A and D

Explanation:

Well the truth is back in the day that's what people wanted to do.

You might be interested in
Common Law
Anika [276]
The answer to your question is (D)
8 0
3 years ago
WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST!!! 100 POINTS ON THE LINE!!!!
Karo-lina-s [1.5K]

Answer:

This article shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. ... Women are still disproportionately poor, suffer from widespread ... opposed equal pay laws and minimum wage increase measures, opposed paid sick

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Please help me!
zhannawk [14.2K]

Answer:

                                     

Explanation:

3 0
2 years ago
What is state ,main components of state and 5 theory of state​
densk [106]
A state is a polity under a system of governance with a monopoly on force. There is no undisputed definition of a state.[1][2] A widely used definition from the German sociologist Max Weber is that a "state" is a polity that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, although other definitions are not uncommon.[3][4] A state is not synonymous with a government, as stateless governments like the Iroquois Confederacy exist.[5]
6 0
3 years ago
WILL MARK BRAINLIEST!!! 100 POINTS!!! For this project, you have the opportunity to be the author and write brief newspaper arti
LUCKY_DIMON [66]

Answer:

Manufacturers are used to defending strict product liability actions when plaintiffs claim that their products are defective. But in the opioid litigation, plaintiffs have filed something else: more than 2,500 public nuisance cases so far.

Governmental entities across the country are filing suits alleging that opioid manufacturers deceptively marketed their legal, opioid-based pain medications to understate the medication’s addictive qualities and to overstate its effectiveness in treating pain. In addition, plaintiffs allege that opioid distributors failed to properly monitor how frequently the medication was prescribed and failed to stop filling prescription orders from known “pill mills.” The complaints claim that manufacturer defendants’ deceptive marketing schemes and distributor defendants’ failure to monitor led more people to become addicted to painkillers, which led to people turning to illegal opioids. The legal argument here is that the defendants’ actions in concert interfered with an alleged public right against unwarranted illness and addition. But is public nuisance law likely to be a successful avenue for prosecuting these types of mass tort claims? It has not been in the past.

This is the first of two posts that will address how plaintiffs have historically used public nuisance law to prosecute mass tort claims and how the plaintiffs in the current opioid litigation may fare.

Overview of Public Nuisance Law

In most states, a public nuisance is “an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.”[1] This definition is often broken down into four elements: (1) the defendant’s affirmative conduct caused (2) an unreasonable interference (3) with a right common to the general public (4) that is abatable.

Courts have interpreted these elements in different ways. For example, courts in Rhode Island and California have disagreed about when a public nuisance is abatable: the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that this element is satisfied only if the defendant had control over what caused the nuisance when the injury occurred, while the a California Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff need not prove this element at all.[2] And while the federal district court in Ohio handling the opioid multidistrict litigation (MDL) has held that the right to be free from unwarranted addiction is a public right,[3] the Supreme Court of Illinois held that the right to be “free from unreasonable jeopardy to health” is a private right and cannot be the basis of a public nuisance claim.[4]

Roots of Public Nuisance Law in Mass Tort Cases

Plaintiffs litigating mass tort cases have turned to public nuisance law over the past decades. In the 1980s and 1990s, plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempted to use it to hold asbestos manufacturers liable.[5] In one case, plaintiffs alleged that defendants created a nuisance by producing an asbestos-laced product that caused major health repercussions for a portion of the population. Plaintiffs argued that North Dakota nuisance law did not require defendants to have the asbestos-laced products within their control when the injury to the consumer occurred. Explicitly rejecting this theory, the Eighth Circuit held that North Dakota nuisance law required the defendant to have control over the product and found that defendant in the case before it did not have control over the asbestos-laced products because when the injury occurred, the products had already been distributed to consumers. The Eighth Circuit warned that broadening nuisance law to encompass these claims “would in effect totally rewrite” tort law, morphing nuisance law into “a monster that would devour in one gulp the entire law of tort.”[6]

3 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • The attempted assassination of President Teddy Roosevelt caused so much public outrage that the insanity defense was greatly res
    11·1 answer
  • What are the different terms for the judges in each system?
    5·1 answer
  • According to the constitutional court what the value of African law<br><br>​
    11·1 answer
  • In 2011, pedestrian deaths accounted for ___% of all traffic fatalities
    12·1 answer
  • A police officer pulls you over, and you are given a citation for violating the speed limit. You have broken a vehicle and traff
    9·1 answer
  • Why does Hertzberg regard capital punishment as a uniquely American brand of sadism?
    5·1 answer
  • Lawyers sometimes overestimate the likelihood of meeting their goals (like acquittal) and also of their ability to ______.
    7·1 answer
  • Question 3: When parking parallel, it is best to leave the curbside wheels:
    8·1 answer
  • How is the United States not the original Apartheid state?.
    8·1 answer
  • 26. Confidentiality may be waived if the information (1 point)
    9·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!