What ever he saw in nature is the saporting details of the story like the mountians and their calling <span />
I think it is C
Explanation:
because it is what i think
Answer:
Meredith and Hunter-Gault were both in danger from gun violence at their schools.
Hunter-Gault was under constant threat, while Meredith felt mostly safe at his school.
Both faced resistance at their schools, but Meredith was in a great deal of
Explanation:
compare to James Meredith’s experiences at the University of Mississippi?
Both were welcomed into their schools and found little opposition to desegregation.
Meredith and Hunter-Gault were both in danger from gun violence at their schools.
Hunter-Gault was under constant threat, while Meredith felt mostly safe at his school.
Both faced resistance at their schools, but Meredith was in a great deal of danger
I think the summary judgement would be inappropriate in this case
Summary judgement is entered by the court if the plaintiff does not have sufficient evidence that the defendants actually do what they're accused of before moving to trial.
On this case, There is a strong proof that peoples restaurant is aware of Hoag's alcoholism : <u>intoxicated</u>
This mean that sabo can proof that the bar know hoag is an alcoholic and had served enough amount to hoag to get him intoxicated.
This mean that Sabo's case is strong enough to be brought to the trial. keep in mind that Sabo is unlikely to win the trial since the restaurant does not directly involved in the accident. but we can definitely say that summary judgement would be inappropriate in this case.
