Explanation:
A statement submitted against a party and made by the party's agent or servant about an issue within the scope of the agency or employment is not
considered hearsay, according to Rule 801(d)(2)(D). during the duration of the relationship. The case is Zaken v. Boerer, 964 F. (2d Cir. 1992) 2d 1319,
1322–23. These elements give the statement a high level of dependability and tend to favor its admission as a non-hearsay statement. In essence, this
statement was made against the employer's interest by the employer's agent or servant while performing their duties.
Explanation:
The rational basis of social and economic regulation is typically examined, and as a result, it is presumed to be valid. Rowe, 320 F.3d 42, 47
(1st Cir. 2003), Kittery Motorcycle, Inc. Under a rational basis review, a law merely needs a minimally plausible set of facts that could demonstrate a
rational connection between the challenged legislation and the legitimate goals of the government. City of East Providence v. Perfect Puppy, Inc., 98 F.
Supp. 2015 Dist. Ct., D. Rhode Island, 3d 408, 419–20. Overpopulation and the brutal treatment of animals, two problems linked to ""puppy mills,"" are
clearly reasonable goals for a government to pursue. 98 F.Supp. Id. at 419.
Explanation:
If a person enters another person's land while using a public or private privilege, there is an exception under Restatement 345. According to
Restatement 198, it is permissible to enter to collect chattel that was brought onto the property against the owner's will and over which the owner
has the right of immediate possession. According to Restatement 197, a person is """"authorized to enter or remain on land in the custody of another
if it is or reasonably appears to be essential to avert serious injury to."" ..the performer, or his property or livestock. ..The invader would be categorized
as a licensee in both cases. For more information, see Restatement 345, Walsh v. Sun Oil Co., 437 Pa. 80, 262 A.2d 128 (1970), and Carpenter v. Penn
Central Transp. Co., 409 A. 1979 (Pa. Super. 2d 37).
Explanation:
According to most state statutes of fraud, promises made in consideration of marriage must be in writing in order to be enforceable. For instance,
Section 506:2 of the New Hampshire Statute of Frauds mandates that any agreement made in consideration of marriage be put in writing. The
equivalent provision is found in Washington State's 19.36.010 of the Revised Code of Washington. Mercantile National Bank at Dallas v. Lieber,
331 SW 2d at 463–469 (TX Ct. of Civil Appeals, 1960).
Explanation:
The concept of constitutionally protected opinion has been developed by the courts. There is no such thing as a false concept, according to Gertz v.
Robert Welch, 418 U.S. 323, 339-40 (1974). Take Ollman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970 (D.C.Cir.1984) (en banc), for instance. rejected, 105 S.Ct. 1127, 471 U.S.
1127. (distinguishing statements of truth from expressions of opinion) 2662, 86 L.Ed.2d 278 (1985). The idea of constitutionally protected opinion,
according to courts, mandates a review of the """"totality of the circumstances"""" surrounding an alleged defamation. Genesis One Computer Corp. v.
Information Control Corp., 611 F.2d 781 (9th Cir. 1980). A statement of pure opinion is typically not actionable. Regardless of how hateful or illogical
it may be, it is protected by the First Amendment as is any expression of ideas. Expressions of opinion, whether true or untrue, libelous or not, are
protected by the constitution and cannot be the target of private damage claims. Check out McCabe v. Rattiner, 814 F. 2d 839, 843 (1st Circ. 1987)
(context, first-person narratives, evasive and unsubstantiated claims, and utterances that give rise to opinion rather than reality).
Explanation:
When a doctor is treating a mentally ill patient by exerting ""control,"" and the doctor knows or should know that the patient is likely to injure others
physically, an independent responsibility arises from that relationship that requires the doctor to take reasonable precautions to stop the harm. See
Bradley Center v. Wessner, 296 SE 2d 693, 250 Ga. 199, 200 (Ga. Supreme Court 1982), as an illustration. Additionally, see Restatement (Second) of
Torts 319, Duty Of Those In Charge Of Person Having Dangerous Propensities: ""One who takes charge of a third person whom he knows or should
know is likely to cause bodily harm to others if not controlled is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to control the third person to prevent him
from doing such harm."
Explanation:
A majority of a state's people cannot remove a vested constitutional right. The United States Constitution's 14th Amendment guarantees due process
before the government can take away someone's life, liberty, or property. It also prohibits states from ""enforcing, facilitating, encouraging, or
authorizing such private discrimination,"" which was violated by this referendum by singling out a particular group for unfair treatment and stripping
them of their rights without a legal justification. The Obergefell v. Hodges case, 135 S. Ct. 135, required the aforementioned justification and complete
acknowledgment of the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry. Ct. 2584 (2015), in which the Court stated that ""couples of the same sex
may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit depriving any
individual of any basic right, including the right to marry. The Supreme Court has officially ruled that same-sex couples have the freedom to marry.
They can no longer be denied this freedom. ”) Id. 135 S. Ct. at 2604-05.
