Answer:
Cleo may be allowed to intervene in the case and gain party status, joining the plaintiff.
Explanation:
Considering the case, it is absolutely right that Cleo may also seek redress or fair remedy in court by joining the original plaintiff as a party to the case.
Therefore, in this case, the correct answer to the question is "Cleo may be allowed to intervene in the case and gain party status, joining the plaintiff."
The interstate commerce act (1887) and the sherman antitrust act (1890) were efforts by the federal government to end the formation of monopolies and to increase healthy competition between businesses.
Segregation would be my guess, but there aren't any options.
Is this a true or false question or..?
If it is; your answer would be True
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
In the case of Chiafalo v. Washington (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for states to place restrictions on who electors can vote for.
I agree with this decision because voting in the Electoral College is a serious thing, and members of the college have to assume this important and serious role. That is why they are members of the Electoral College and expressed their intention to vote for the candidate they supported.
I think there would be no room for faithless electors in the US Electoral College. There is no reason for them to vote for other people if they originally pledge to vote for their candidates.
On July 6, 2020, the case of Chiafalo v. Washington was decided.
