Answer:
Explanation:
public-interest group. an organization that works for the best interests of the overall community rather than the narrower interests of one segment. lobbying. the process by which organized interests attempt to affect the decisions and actions of public officials. lobbyists.
Personal jurisdiction is the type of jurisdiction which involves a court's power to bring a person into its adjudicative process.
The power that a court has to make a decision regarding the party being sued in a case is personal jurisdiction.
There are generally five types of jurisdiction: Subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, general and limited jurisdiction, exclusive / concurrent jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction.
The difference between personal and subject jurisdiction is that personal jurisdiction is a requirement that a given court have power over the defendant, based on minimum contacts with the forum while subject jurisdiction is the requirement that a given court have power to hear the specific kind of claim that is brought to that court.
Learn more about personal jurisdiction here:
brainly.com/question/26659100
#SPJ4
Answer:
Add to
Explanation:
The text points out that as family members separate and then join new families formed by remarriage, the new kin do not so much replace as ADD TO kin from the first marriage.
This is because Family law assumes that marriages are first marriages. So a new kin from a remarriage tends to be difficult to replace add to kin from the first marriage. A Next of kin refers to someone's closest blood relative and they tend to inherit most of properties of an individual when he eventually dies.
Leo is committing a fallacy called a red herring, which is a device in an argument that detracts the opponent from relevant issue. By saying that Scandinavian countries produce less carbon emissions than the US, he's either deliberately or inadvertently distracting Annie away from the fact that whether or not Scandinavian countries produce emissions matter, what matters in this context is that the US will receive less economical benefits from decreasing carbon emissions. By mentioning the state of Scandinavian countries, he pulling her away from the main topic at hand: effects of decrease of carbon emissions on the economy of the US alone.
