Answer:
No.
Explanation:
Unless the account belongs to the school, you can sue them.
Answer:
The Case of the Supreme Court Worcester v. Georgia was a small victory for the Cherokee nation in Georgia because it was decided that Georgia laws did not apply to Cherokee territory.
Explanation:
In the Worcester case v. Georgia, the Supreme Court denied Georgia jurisdiction and state authority over the Cherokee community. In other words, this meant that Georgia law and authority did not apply to Cherokee territory. Although this decision was a small victory for the Cherokee people, the decision was not very helpful as the state of Georgia totally ignored the Supreme Court decision and forced the Cherokee community to march west.
Explanation:
Yes someone can bring it to appeal court if he or she is unhappy with the verdict
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
What the officers did was unconstitutional and violated the 4th amendment. Weeks v. United States established the Exclusionary Rule in 1914. At the time the exclusionary rule was only applied for federal courts instead of all courts. In 1949, Wolf v. Colorado, the High Court ruled that the Exclusionary Rule did not apply to the State but the Fourth Amendment did. In 1961, Mapp v. Ohio, the High Court ruled that the exclusionary rule applies to the state level as well as the federal. Justice Clark said this perfectly, "Thus the State, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, serves to encourage disobedience to the Federal Constitution which it is bound to uphold....... Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
Proximate cause represents the proposition that a negligent party is legally liable only for the foreseeable risk that they cause.
A proximate cause, as used in both law and insurance, is an event that is sufficiently connected to an injury for the courts to recognize it as the injury's primary cause. The legal system distinguishes between proximate (also known as legal) cause and cause-in-fact. The "but for" test is used to identify cause-in-fact: Without the action, the outcome would not have occurred. (For instance, if the driver had not run the red light, the collision would not have happened.) Although the action is a necessary precondition for the injury, it might not be sufficient in and of itself. There are a few situations where the but for test is useless.
Learn more about Proximate cause, here
brainly.com/question/13885854
#SPJ4
