Hi there!
As a result of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court banned B. the use of quotas in affirmative action.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was a landmark Supreme Court decision that ruled that while affirmative action programs are sometimes constitutional, racial quotas are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
homogeneous mixture have types
Explanation:
true solution and alloys
Not sure but i think the second one
<h2>Through t
he concept of prosecutorial immunity.</h2>
Explanation:
In Kalina v. Fletcher (1997), the court ruled that a prosecutor may be sued for making false statements of fact in an affidavit in support of an arrest warrant. This is occurred when Prosecutor Kalina was sued by Fletcher for making two inaccurate factual statements regarding him during his trial.
Prosecutor Kalina, therefore, seeked the provisions of prosecutorial immunity from the court to gain immunity. However, this was rejected as the court claimed that a prosecutor may be sued for making false statements of fact in an affidavit in support of an arrest warrant.
This ruling correlate with the concept of prosecutorial immunity becuase she was denied of such immunity. It ruled that her conduct could not be protected through prosecutorial immunity.
I'm not sure what you're asking for but trial courts have original jurisdiction the court of appeals has appellate and the Supreme Court has both. A litigant is a person involved in a lawsuit.
