Answer:
Explanation:
Appeal:
An appeal is the process of making a formal request to a higher (appellate) court to reverse a lower court’s decision after the lower court has made a final judgment or ruling. Often, the losing party files an appeal with the higher court; this begins the appellate review process. An appellate court reviews the facts as presented in the trial, and no other evidence is considered in making an appellate decision. The main purpose of an appeal is to review the legal decisions made at the trial court level.
Appellant:
An appellant is the party to a lawsuit who is seeking an appeal from a lower court decision. The appellant is typically the party who lost at the trial court level. The appellant must file a notice of appeal and offer a legal brief to the appellate court, putting forth its legal arguments and its legal basis for the appeal.
Appellee:
An appellee is the party who wins the judgment at the trial court level. The appellee must respond to the appellant’s legal arguments by filing a legal brief and appear in court, if necessary, to argue to the appellate court why the lower court decision should not be disturbed.
Harmless error:
Harmless error is an error allegedly made by a lower court judge that an appellate court finds insufficient to alter or amend the lower court’s decision. The error is deemed “harmless” because reconsideration of the alleged error would have no bearing on the outcome of the lower court’s decision. An example of a harmless error would be a technical error made by the lower court that, under the applicable law, was improperly decided; yet, the remaining evidence substantially supports the original judgment.
Injunction:
An injunction is an order issued by the court which orders a party to do something or prohibits the party from doing something. An injunction may be proper when a party may be harmed by another party’s threatened actions.
Interlocutory appeal:
An interlocutory appeal is a type of appeal that seeks the review of a temporary order (such as an injunction) that is related to a pending lawsuit. An interlocutory appeal is filed and heard while the underlying action is still proceeding at the trial court level.
Mandamus:
A mandamus action is an order issued by a court that orders a governmental body or public agency to perform an act required by law. Often, a mandamus action is sought when a governmental body or public agency fails or refuses to act under an applicable law.
Writ of certiorari:
A writ of certiorari is a type of judicial order from an upper level court to a lower court (for example, the U.S. Supreme Court to a U.S. Court of Appeal) to send the court record and related documents of a particular case to the higher court for its review. A writ of certiorari is typically associated with the review of lower court decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court or state supreme courts. The appealing party must file a writ of certiorari (also sometimes referred to in short hand as “cert”) to the higher court, which may agree to review the lower court's decision ("granting certiorari") or may refuse to review the lower court's decision ("denying certiorari").
Answer:
It is still illegal to use or possess marijuana under Texas law — and has been since 1931.
Explanation:
What changed last year is that hemp is considered different from marijuana. Since the law change, prosecutors and state crime labs have dropped hundreds of pending marijuana charges and declined to pursue new ones because they don’t have the resources to detect a substance’s precise THC content, arguably keeping them from the evidence they need to prove in court if a cannabis substance is illegal.
Gov. Greg Abbott and other state officials insisted that the bill didn’t decriminalize marijuana and that the prosecutors don’t understand the new law. Still, marijuana prosecutions in Texas plummeted by more than half in the six months after the law was enacted, according to the data from the Texas Office of Court Administration.
And medical cannabis is legal in Texas in very limited circumstances. Abbott signed the Texas Compassionate Use Act into law in 2015, allowing people with epilepsy to access cannabis oil with less than 0.5% THC. Last year, he signed House Bill 3703, which expanded the list of qualifying conditions to include diseases such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and Lou Gehrig's disease, or ALS.
The factor should a plaintiff consider when deciding which interference tort applies to a situation is that
- The plaintiff must a contract that is with a third party;
- The defendant must know about the contract at the time of the alleged interference
- The defendant must have interfered intentionallly and the interference was not right
- The actions of defendant’s led to a breach of the contract
- The plaintiff has suffered some measure of damage as a result
- The defendant knew a contract between the plaintiff and a third party existed.
For better understanding let's explain what tort interference means
- There are two types of tortious interference
- Tortious interference with contract
- Tortious interference with good economic advantage.
- Tort interference is regarded as an issue where one party was involved in something or does a thing to intentionally disregard another party’s business transactions or project
From the above we can therefore say that the answer the factors should a plaintiff consider when deciding which interference tort applies to a situation is that:
- The plaintiff must a contract that is with a third party;
- The defendant must know about the contract at the time of the alleged interference
- The defendant must have interfered intentionallly and the interference was not right
- The actions of defendant’s led to a breach of the contract
- The plaintiff has suffered some measure of damage as a result
- The defendant knew a contract between the plaintiff and a third party existed is correct
Learn more Tort interference from:
brainly.com/question/15058912
Answer:
In 2005, police misconduct in New Orleans had reached an all-time high. In the weeks before and after Hurricane Katrina, several high-profile beatings and unjustified shootings by police led to intense federal scrutiny of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD), including a 2010 U.S. Department of Justice investigation and a 2013 federal consent decree to overhaul policies and promote greater transparency and more civilian oversight of the police force.
In 2017, the NOPD aspires to serve as a model for how to reduce police misconduct. Rather than standing silently by—or joining in on a fellow officer's brutality—New Orleans
