Mayonnaise on an escalator its going ups stairs so see ya later

At that time little Lulu was wearing only a sweater, a ruffled skirt, and tights. After the serious punishment Lulu began to do things as her mother ordered. Chua was determined to raise an obedient Chinese child—in the West, obedience is associated with dogs and the caste system, but in Chinese culture, it is considered among the highest of virtues.

“But run where when there are 30,000 teenagers who have fled their homes in New York and only 400 emergency shelter beds, 13,000 runaways in New Jersey with a safe haven for only 300, and 10,000 in Connecticut with room for just 115? Even if a runaway finds a bed in a crisis center, where does he or she go after reaching the 30 days federal limit for sanctuary in an emergency shelter?” (Gross, 1) It is a sad thing that these are ordinary numbers, that these numbers for runaway children are realistic at all. There are not enough youth shelters, for kids to be able to flee to a haven when their home isn’t safe.

And also the fact that Curley’s wife does not have a name, but is only referred to as “Curley’s wife” and that Slim’s dog is given a name – “Lulu” – shows the reader that dogs were treated better than women at those times. The failure of Curley’s wife’s dream leads to her death, which also takes place in late afternoon, as the days ends so does her life. John Steinbeck tells us through this cyclical novel that dreams are futile.

Runaway Kids When children and teens have to deal with abuse, family, depression, or any other issues for an extensive period of time without getting the help they may run away. When a kid has these problems and they are unable to get help then why would they stick around and wait for dad to come home? The process in which our government finds and helps runaway children is not up to a standard that keeps them from falling into the streets and succumbing to sex, drugs, and violence.

Candy wants people to treat him once he is canned like this. This is because he “won’t have no place to go, an’ he can’t get no more jobs”. The other ranch hands say that he can replace the dog with one of Lulu’s pups, but of course that wouldn’t be the same, never is anyone or anything the equivalent, everyone and everything is unique.

1. What economic questions does this case require the townb to ask? What is a dog park and how does it benefit the community? Can people or dogs get hurt at a dog park? How will dogs fight be avoided? If a dog park is built, will there be space available for an affordable recreation facility? 2. List the possible resources that the town would need to construct and maintain the park?

This action evinces that Candy is apologising to the dog on Carlson’s behalf. Candy treats his dog like a human as his dog is his only companion. However, the workers at the ranch see him only as a dog. When Carlson mentions to Candy about shooting his dog, Candy’s actions and dialogues convey how Candy feels about this idea.

Dogs like to be free, and they like to run and play instead of being chained down. Secondly, it provides dog owners with a chance to do things with their pets that they can’t do because of limited space. Lastly, having a dog park will prove that the town is family friendly, attracting more families to the town, and for all of the reasons, a dog park should be constructed in the town of Martinsville.

Teens may turn to drugs and or drink at sometimes a very young age to cope with the hardships they face at home, school, or with personal issues. Whether they turn to them before running away and being exposed to the streets or beforehand, there is a high likelihood of it. The law about runaways differs from that of abductees.

[Original source: https://essaytoolbox.com/essay-maker]

7 0

2 years ago

Which of the following statements best describes the impact of the Supreme Court decision in Marbury v. Madison?

N76 [4]

I think the answer is A but I’m not sure hope I helped

5 0

3 years ago

WILL MARK BRAINLIEST!!! 100 POINTS!!! For this project, you have the opportunity to be the author and write brief newspaper arti

LUCKY_DIMON [66]

Answer:

Manufacturers are used to defending strict product liability actions when plaintiffs claim that their products are defective. But in the opioid litigation, plaintiffs have filed something else: more than 2,500 public nuisance cases so far.

Governmental entities across the country are filing suits alleging that opioid manufacturers deceptively marketed their legal, opioid-based pain medications to understate the medication’s addictive qualities and to overstate its effectiveness in treating pain. In addition, plaintiffs allege that opioid distributors failed to properly monitor how frequently the medication was prescribed and failed to stop filling prescription orders from known “pill mills.” The complaints claim that manufacturer defendants’ deceptive marketing schemes and distributor defendants’ failure to monitor led more people to become addicted to painkillers, which led to people turning to illegal opioids. The legal argument here is that the defendants’ actions in concert interfered with an alleged public right against unwarranted illness and addition. But is public nuisance law likely to be a successful avenue for prosecuting these types of mass tort claims? It has not been in the past.

This is the first of two posts that will address how plaintiffs have historically used public nuisance law to prosecute mass tort claims and how the plaintiffs in the current opioid litigation may fare.

Overview of Public Nuisance Law

In most states, a public nuisance is “an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.”[1] This definition is often broken down into four elements: (1) the defendant’s affirmative conduct caused (2) an unreasonable interference (3) with a right common to the general public (4) that is abatable.

Courts have interpreted these elements in different ways. For example, courts in Rhode Island and California have disagreed about when a public nuisance is abatable: the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that this element is satisfied only if the defendant had control over what caused the nuisance when the injury occurred, while the a California Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff need not prove this element at all.[2] And while the federal district court in Ohio handling the opioid multidistrict litigation (MDL) has held that the right to be free from unwarranted addiction is a public right,[3] the Supreme Court of Illinois held that the right to be “free from unreasonable jeopardy to health” is a private right and cannot be the basis of a public nuisance claim.[4]

Roots of Public Nuisance Law in Mass Tort Cases

Plaintiffs litigating mass tort cases have turned to public nuisance law over the past decades. In the 1980s and 1990s, plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempted to use it to hold asbestos manufacturers liable.[5] In one case, plaintiffs alleged that defendants created a nuisance by producing an asbestos-laced product that caused major health repercussions for a portion of the population. Plaintiffs argued that North Dakota nuisance law did not require defendants to have the asbestos-laced products within their control when the injury to the consumer occurred. Explicitly rejecting this theory, the Eighth Circuit held that North Dakota nuisance law required the defendant to have control over the product and found that defendant in the case before it did not have control over the asbestos-laced products because when the injury occurred, the products had already been distributed to consumers. The Eighth Circuit warned that broadening nuisance law to encompass these claims “would in effect totally rewrite” tort law, morphing nuisance law into “a monster that would devour in one gulp the entire law of tort.”[6]

3 0

2 years ago