present from the head to the knees. Livor mortis was found present
along the right side of the body and turned pale when pressed. Purple
bruising was found on the left and right side of the neck with small
dark purple spots on the skin in the area. Petechiae are found in the
eye.
I believe that the answer is Jurisdiction
The basis on which Nevada had the authority to <u>override a federal law</u> is <u>Option A</u>. ... widespread public acceptance and general use of marijuana has made it difficult to enforce federal law.
<h3>Can a state override a federal law?</h3>
The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supremacy Clause means that the federal constitution and laws take precedence over state laws and constitutions.
<h3>Answer Options:</h3>
A. Nevada doesn’t have the authority to override federal law. Federal law stands supreme. Yet, the force of widespread public acceptance and general use of marijuana has made it difficult to enforce federal law. We also saw this effect during Prohibition in the 1920s – which showed that even constitutional law has limits if a substantial part of the population does not support that law.
B. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has the statutory authority to allow exceptions to federal drug laws.
C. States have precedence over federal authorities on matters of recreational drug use.
D. The executive authority of the governor of Nevada makes such laws exceptions to federal prohibitions. By virtue of signing the legislation making marijuana legal, Governor Brian Sandoval’s executive authority gave pot’s legal possession precedence over federal law.
Thus, the basis on which Nevada had the authority to <u>override a federal law</u> is <u>Option A</u>. ... widespread public acceptance and general use of marijuana has made it difficult to enforce federal law.
Learn more about the Supremacy Clause at brainly.com/question/12959391
The correct option is (c); Yes, because the court took all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and resolved all doubts and inferences in the defendant's favor.
<h3>What is third-part defendant?</h3>
A third-party defendant is a person or entity that the primary defendant sues and adds to the case under the theory that they are accountable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim.
For the given case:
- The court must accept as true all of the well-pleaded facts in the complaint and resolve any questions and inferences in the complainant's favor before deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss for failure to establish a claim on which relief can be granted. The complainant in this case is the defendant.
- Answer option A is erroneous because the third-party defendant's move was a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be given, not a petition to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, not withstanding the lack of diversity of citizenship, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the defendant's contribution complaint since it is based on federal law, even though it may raise the question of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on its own.
- B is the incorrect response option. The court may only take into account the claims in the complaint, any exhibits attached to the complaint, and any matters susceptible to judicial notice when deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss for failure to establish a claim on which relief can be granted. (Remember that for a request for summary judgment, the court could take into account outside information like an affidavit.)
- Because any party against whom a claim is made may file a motion to dismiss for failure to articulate a claim upon which relief can be given, answer choice D is wrong.
To know more about jurisdiction and its types, here
brainly.com/question/10377896
#SPJ4
