Answer: the correct answer is D) The easement was not extinguished.
Explanation:
The investor has an easement to cross the northern parcel even if the developer never exercised her right to use the easement. The original easement granted to the developer was an easement appurtenant, the benefit of which passes with a transfer of the benefited land. An easement is considered appurtenant when the right of special use benefits the easement holder in her physical use or enjoyment of another tract of land. The land subject to the easement is the servient tenement, while the land having the benefit of the easement is the dominant tenement. The benefit of an easement appurtenant passes with transfers of the benefited land, regardless of whether the easement is mentioned in the conveyance. All who possess or subsequently succeed to title to the dominant tenement are entitled to the benefit of the easement.
I'm pretty sure its is Dutch
Answer:
Gideon v. Wainwright
Explanation:
The importance of the Gideon ruling is that it is of historical interest, and relevant to appreciating the constitutional protections available to citizens. Prior to the Gideon ruling, the Supreme Court had decided several other cases relating to the right of counsel; nearly all such cases had involved the death penalty. Gideon extended the right to counsel to non-capital cases as well.
Jury duty is considered a civic duty while voting is a responsibility.