Answer:
urban violence is often a driver, rather than an outgrowth, of structural disadvantage. He does this while shutting down racist cultural finger-pointing from the right.
Explanation:
The answer would be - Viewing commercials in exchange for watching network news broadcasts
Answer:
B. Seep's is not liable because Abel didn't act within the scope of his employment.
Explanation:
According to the facts, Abel is a rightful employee of Seep Corporation. And he also has a duty to preserve the interest of his employer.
But at the same time, his act of beating up and assaulting Johnny was done outside of the jurisdiction of his working hours. And as such, he wasn't covered in the company's rule of using <em>"force to keep intruders from climbing the fence to enter the plant"</em>. Moreover, the personal attack that Johnny had done on him makes this assault personal. So, Abel's attack on Johnny has nothing to do with the company he works for, and the Corporation is not liable for any charges or damages that their employee had done outside of his 'employment' hours.
Thus, the <u>correct answer is option B.
</u>
There is no answer choice
No i don’t think so because the district court hears two different types of cases, civil cases and criminal cases. ... these cases include drug felonies, non-drug felonies, off grid felonies, infractions and all unclassified and classified misdemeanors.
