1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
olya-2409 [2.1K]
3 years ago
10

Has this video prompted you to make any changes in the way that you view or manage your personal finances? Do you think it will

impact how you handle your personal finances in the future? Explain.
Law
1 answer:
Genrish500 [490]3 years ago
8 0

Where is your video. Please post, I can help if it is short.

You might be interested in
1. What is the importance of the concept of the "Rule of Law"?
emmasim [6.3K]

Answer:

The rule of law. The mechanism, institution practice etc

Explanation:

As citizens we should respect these laws above

7 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
How do you kill someone with out killing them
astra-53 [7]

Answer:

Killing someone would be murder and it is illegal. So don't do it.

Explanation:

This may sound crude and i recommend not doing this. In medical terminology and  psychological research, people can be so depressed the can be like a zombie and just be waiting for death to happen. They are not aware of their surroundings and they don't listen if they chose not to. That is the closest thing to being dead but still living and breathing.

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
On February 2019, Melinda applies and nominates herself for the prestigious North American Literary Prize. In June 2019, she win
spin [16.1K]

Answer:

Melinda is required to include the cash prize in the Gross Income.

Explanation:

Gross Income is the total payment in cash, goods and services that a person received before tax reductions, that is, it is the general value of everything that a person received in a given period of time, including wages, premiums, real estate, among other things . In this case, we can confirm that the cash prize received by Melinda must be included in her Gross Income, in addition, if she has received a prize with an economic value, she must also include this prize in the Gross Income, even if she has donated .

3 0
3 years ago
Is it legal to smoke inside a vehicle with a minor in California?​
statuscvo [17]

No

Explanation:

lt is not legal at all

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Help please. make a creative piece of work on the equality act. Will give brainliest
    15·1 answer
  • A crowbar is found at a crime scene. The crowbar has the potential to contain the suspect's fingerprints and/or DNA on the handl
    10·1 answer
  • What is an executive agreement
    11·1 answer
  • You post a notice at school that you will sell your laptop computer for $1,200. A buyer comes by your room to look at it while y
    10·2 answers
  • Under the US structure and operation of government each state can make, enforce
    8·1 answer
  • The Twenty-Seventh Amendment is the most recent amendment to the Constitution. Its
    7·1 answer
  • Can player-created content within a video game be registered for Copyright or Creative Commons within the United States?
    5·2 answers
  • The two systems of law in use today are the English common law and the....
    12·2 answers
  • 5. Officer Williams patrols in a mostly Hispanic neighborhood. Although he has worked in the community for several years, he doe
    9·1 answer
  • Phoenix was found guilty as charged; however, the judge deferred imprisonment and stipulated court supervision and demonstration
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!