Answer: No.
Explanation:
The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, later amended by the Clayton Act (1914) prohibits agreements in restraint of trade and monopolization. I expressely outlaws competing firms to conspire to consolidate the market by unfair means, restraining the trade of others.
In this case, the standards for non-wood bats set by the NCAA and the NFHS are not meant to establish a monopoly and they don´t restrain Marucci´s trade.
The question is incomplete. This is the complete question:
The state trial court in Nevada has issued a decision in which a party has been found guilty of fraud. Should a case arise in the future with the same basic fact situation, Nevada courts will be bound by precedent to follow the reasoning and decision of this prior decision.
Answer:
No, should a case arise in the future with the same basic fact situation, Nevada state trial courts will not be bound by precedent to follow the reasoning and decision of this prior decision, because the decisions of trial courts do not use precedents or rulings established in previous legal cases to arrive at decisions on future disputes involving different or entirely new parties.
Answer: C.
Explanation: Its because charters use c
Answer:
A
Explanation:
But if its wrong you should pick B
Answer:
McCulloch v. Maryland was a decision of the United States Supreme Court. The state of Maryland attempted to prevent a branch of the Second Bank of the United States from operating by imposing a tax on all banknotes of banks not founded in Maryland. The Second Bank of the United States was the only bank then present in the state that had not been founded on it. The Court invoked the Theory of Implicit Powers of the Constitution, which allowed the Federal Government to pass laws that are not expressly provided for in the Constitution, from a list of expressed powers, provided that those laws are useful for Congress's powers, pursuant to Constitution.
