Optium war is your answer :)
Answer:
D. They did not want free states to have a majority in the Senate.
Explanation:
i just took the test
The answer is letter C. The progressive Era wanted to change the political outlook as well as create a government that would be beneficial to the citizens of the United States. They created laws to stop big bosses in saloons as well as promote women suffrage in the United States
The correct answers are B) multiple civil wars, D) economic collapse due to inflation, and E) repeated invasions from all over.
The three things that brought about the fall of Rome when they all hit at once were the multiple civil wars, economic collapse due to inflation, and repeated invasions from all over.
Historians such as Edward Gibbon consider that the fall of the Roman Empire started in 476 CE when Germans deposed Romulus Augustus form the Western part of the empire. Among the reasons for the decline of the Roman Empire, historians consider the rise of Islam, the rise of Christianity, the tremendous expansion that not allowed for proper control of the territories, multiple civil wars, economic collapse due to inflation, and repeated invasions from all over.
Answer:
It was a radical change in people’s understanding of the universe and Earth’s place in it.
Explanation:
edge2020
Answer:
Regarding the case of Daugert vs. Pappas; the Supreme Court must be informed that John Pappas and his firm were found guilty of malpractice, due to extra temporal request to review an appeal, on a case that was previously ruled in favor of his former client. His negligence conducted to his former client to assume costs, previously overruled by the Court. Main considerations for this case evaluation were the chances of the appeal reversion, as estimated by the Jury
Explanation:
Background
The attorney John Pappas was working for Mountain Development Company (MDC). Black Mountain Ranch (BMR), a commercial entity, bought a recreation complex from MDC. Several deficiencies appeared in the construction and both parties tried to resolved who should be in charge of repairing costs, without agreement.
As a solution, both proposed an agreement, with an external advisor evaluating the situation (Anvil Corporation). When Anvil concluded its investigation, indicated that all defects were caused by a faulty design made by MDC. MDC then rejected those findings, and also, refused to pay for the corrections. To this, BMR responded with a lawsuit against MDC, indicating an agreement breach.
At the end of trial, the Court assigned the blame not to MDC, but BMR, pointing that lack of maintenance resulted in degradation of the infrastructure. BMR then filed an appeal, indicating that, since there was no wrong intention proved, the agreement was biding.
MDC asked its attorney, John Pappas, to request a review to the Court; but this request was presented a day after finishing the valid period to receive the request. Considering this, the developer lost any chance of defending themselves against the appeal, and the Court failed in favor of BMR.
Summarizing, the lawsuit that initially was provided by Court in favor of MCD, was later lost because their attorney did not requested a review, in the given time.
As consequence, MCD, represented by Larry Daugert, presented a suit against Pappas, alleging malpractice.
Daugert vs. Pappas.
Pappas and his firm were accused by Daugert of breach of duty, causing MDC to lost a case that was ruled in their favor, due to an extra temporal appeal review request.
During trial, allegations were made based on the chances of dismissal of the appeal if the review request would have been accepted. Judge considered this an issue to be ruled by Jury, indicating them that:
Finally, the Jury calculated in 20% the changes of the Supreme Court to review and reverse the appeal, meaning that Daugert was able to prove malpractice performed by Pappas.
Main elements resulting of this trial
The main element used to rule malpractice is how close are the actions of the professional to create a negative result for its customer (proximity cause). On this case, the attorney failed to present a review in time, affecting his customer. This is the main justification provided to fail against Pappas, and used to define malpractice.
Also, considering that requesting the Jury to provide probabilities of the scenarios indicated by the Judge could have been considered out of rule, this was made in base of the client’s needs, and the legal profession. This, in order to provide a perspective of this proximity cause, for the Jury.
The question refers to the citation of a specific legal case from the Supreme Court of Washington. This is a Law question appropriate for a College level student. The mentioned case, along with others, are used as precedents to shape legal investigations and decisions.
The Larry Daugert, Trustee for David M. Simms & Gail Simms versus John D. Pappas & Betty Pappas case, which was presented to the Supreme Court of Washington in 1985, and is listed in both volume 104, page 254, of the Washington Reports, Second Series, and in volume 704, page 600, of the Pacific Reporter, Second Series, is a notable reference for various legal arguments. This case, along with others such as Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974); Attorney Gen. of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898 (1986); and Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978), helps form a broader context within the field of law. Each court case contributes to the evolving interpretation of laws and constitutional rights that continually shape our legal system.
#SPJ3