Under the general rule, communications about legal services must be truthful and not misleading. This means that lawyers cannot make false or unsubstantiated claims about their services or their experience.
They also cannot create an unjustified expectation about the outcome of a case. Additionally, lawyers must ensure that their communications do not create confusion or misunderstandings about their services or fees. They must also be mindful of the confidentiality of their clients and cannot reveal any information that would compromise their client's interests. In summary, communications about legal services must be honest, accurate, and clear, and must not violate any ethical rules or standards.
For more such questions on lawyers , click on:
https://brainly.com/question/29731616
#SPJ11
What are some of the prosecutor's duties? (3-4)
As the legal representative of the government, the prosecutor has several important duties. One of their main responsibilities is to review evidence and determine whether to file criminal charges against an individual.
They must also prepare and present cases in court, including questioning witnesses and making opening and closing statements. Additionally, prosecutors are responsible for negotiating plea bargains with defendants and their attorneys, which can result in a reduction of charges or sentence.
Finally, prosecutors also have a duty to protect the rights of victims and ensure that they receive justice and compensation for any harm they may have suffered. Overall, prosecutors play a crucial role in the criminal justice system, ensuring that laws are upheld and justice is served fairly.
For more such questions on prosecutor, click on:
https://brainly.com/question/28893404
#SPJ11
Alan was recently paid by Tracy for work Alan performed at Tracy's house. Tracy writes a check to Alan for $1,000. Before cashing the check at his bank, Alan adds a zero to make the check read $10,000 instead of $1,000. Based upon these facts alone, Alan may have committed the crime of
Alan may have committed the crime of check fraud or forgery, which is a serious criminal offense.
By altering the check, Alan has attempted to deceive the bank into believing that Tracy authorized a payment of $10,000, which is not true. This type of action is illegal and can result in criminal charges and legal consequences.
Specifically, altering a check with the intent to defraud or deceive is considered a type of forgery or fraud, and it can be charged as a felony offense.
The severity of the offense and the potential penalties depend on several factors, including the amount of money involved, the intent of the defendant, and the jurisdiction where the offense occurred.
Therefore, Alan's action of altering the check by adding a zero to increase the amount payable from $1,000 to $10,000 can be considered as a crime of check fraud or forgery.
To know more about check fraud here:
https://brainly.com/question/4411295
#SPJ4
ellen, a citizen of california, was seriously injured in an automobile accident while driving in california. she was injured due to the negligence of sara, a citizen of arizona, who ran a red light at an intersection. ellen is seeking 1.5 million in damages. 1. where may ellen bring her suit? 2. discuss the process ellen would have to follow in order to fully litigate her claim. 3. if sara is granted summary judgment at the trial court level, what may ellen do next? explain her options.
Since the accident happened in California and she is a resident there, Ellen may file her lawsuit there.
She would have to submit a complaint in the proper California court, detailing the incident and the losses she sustained as a result of Sara's carelessness. Both sides gather information and interview witnesses for depositions. The parties may make an effort to settle through mediation or negotiation.
If a settlement cannot be reached, the case will move forward to trial, where both parties will present their cases to a judge or jury along with supporting evidence. On the basis of such evidences the jury will decide whether sara is liable or not and elle will get compensation.
If sara is granted summary judgment at the trial court level, Elle can appeal in the higher court of justice or can settle the dispute outside the court.
Learn more about lawsuit at:
brainly.com/question/30392587
#SPJ4
Explain the difference between cause and manner of death.
Answer:
Check the attached document
Explanation:
Intentional torts are based on:a. negligenceb. carelessnessc. willful misconduct d. assumption of care e. obsequiousness
Intentional torts are based on willful misconduct. Intentional torts refer to civil wrongs that occur when an individual intentionally causes harm or injury to another person.
This is different from negligence or carelessness, which involve unintentional actions that result in harm. Willful misconduct, or the deliberate and purposeful intent to cause injury or damage, is the foundation of intentional torts.
Some common examples of intentional torts include assault, battery, false imprisonment, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In these cases, the defendant acts with the intent to cause harm, knowing that their actions will likely result in injury or damage to the plaintiff.
Assumption of care and obsequiousness are not relevant factors in determining intentional torts. Assumption of care refers to an individual voluntarily taking on responsibility for another person's well-being, while obsequiousness involves excessive submission or servile behavior.
In summary, intentional torts are based on willful misconduct, which is the deliberate intention to cause harm or injury to another person. This sets intentional torts apart from negligence or carelessness, which involve unintentional actions leading to harm. Assumption of care and obsequiousness are not relevant factors in determining intentional torts.
To know more about Intentional torts refer here:
https://brainly.com/question/29871339#
#SPJ11
how has the judiciary become more assertive
The Indian judiciary has become more assertive in recent years. It has increasingly taken suo moto cognizance of issues that have an impact on the public interest and has issued directives to the executive and legislative branches of the government.
The judiciary has also played a prominent role in upholding the fundamental rights of the citizens of India, and has been very proactive in ensuring that the government upholds the rule of law. The judiciary has also taken up the cause of environmental protection and has issued directions to the government to take measures to protect the environment.
The judiciary has also been very active in taking up cases related to corruption and human rights violations. It has issued directions for the prosecution and punishment of those found guilty. Thus, the judiciary has become an important pillar of the Indian democracy and has played a major role in upholding the rule of law and protecting the fundamental rights of citizens.
Know more about judiciary here
https://brainly.com/question/14305259#
#SPJ11
If an institution conducts research involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules in rodents, the IBC is required to have members or ad hoc consultants with expertise in:
When an institution conducts research involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules in rodents, the (IBC) is required to have members or ad hoc consultants with expertise in Molecular biology, Animal care and use, Biosafety and Regulatory compliance.
1. Molecular biology: An expert in molecular biology is needed to understand the techniques used in manipulating nucleic acid molecules, such as cloning, gene editing, and gene expression analysis. They can assess the potential risks associated with the research and recommend appropriate safety measures
2. Animal care and use: An expert in animal care and use ensures that the research is conducted ethically, following guidelines for the treatment of rodents. They can help evaluate the potential impact of the research on the animals and provide advice on animal handling, housing, and welfare.
3. Biosafety: A biosafety expert is essential for evaluating the containment measures needed to protect researchers, the environment, and the public from potential exposure to recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules. They can recommend appropriate biosafety levels, containment practices, and risk mitigation strategies.
4. Regulatory compliance: An expert in regulatory compliance ensures that the research complies with relevant federal, state, and local regulations, including the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules. They can help the IBC navigate the complex regulatory landscape and maintain compliance with all necessary requirements.
By having members or consultants with expertise in these areas, the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) can make informed decisions about the safety and ethics of research involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules in rodents, ensuring that the research is conducted responsibly and with minimal risks.
For More Such Questions on IBC
https://brainly.com/question/31032521
#SPJ11
How does Wouk say Jews can be loyal to both religious law and the law of the land?
Herman Wouk, a Jewish-American author and World War II veteran believed that Jews could be loyal to both religious law and the law of the land by recognizing the validity and importance of each system of law and finding ways to reconcile any potential conflicts between them.
In his book "This is My God", Wouk argued that Judaism has a long tradition of respecting secular authority and the laws of the countries where Jews live. He noted that the Talmud, a central text of Jewish law, contains many passages that affirm the importance of obeying the laws of the land, so long as they do not conflict with Jewish religious principles.
At the same time, Wouk acknowledged that Jewish law, or halakhah, is essential to Jewish identity and practice. He believed that Jews could reconcile these two systems of law by striving to obey both and by recognizing that the laws of the land and Jewish law are not necessarily in opposition.
To learn more about Jewish-Americans, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/9990053
#SPJ4
Assess how you as a you person could use socila media to promote respect for the different rights in the bill of rights
A person could use social media to promote respect for the different rights in the bill of rights by sharing educational and informative content as well as advocating for marginalized communities.
How can social media be utilized?As ap owerful tool in promoting respect for the different rights in the bill of rights, an individuals can use the platforms to share educational and informative content about the bill of rights including its history and significance.
This can help to raise awareness and understanding about the importance of protecting the rights enshrined in the document. It can also be used to engage in respectful discussions about different rights and their implications.
Read more about social media
brainly.com/question/3653791
#SPJ1
Why would a prosecutor decide not to prosecute a case? (4-5)
A prosecutor may decide not to prosecute a case due to several factors. Insufficient evidence can make it difficult to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a potential acquittal.
Additionally, the existence of credible alibis or witnesses could undermine the prosecution's case. Resource constraints might also play a role, as prosecuting a case with low chances of success could be seen as a waste of time and resources.
Finally, considerations of the public interest may influence the decision, as pursuing a case with minimal societal impact might not be a priority. In such situations, the prosecutor may opt for alternative resolutions, like plea bargains or diversion programs.
For more such questions on prosecutor, click on:
https://brainly.com/question/28893404
#SPJ11
what sectors do griffiths and kennedy argue judges are biast against
Justice Thomas Griffith and Justice Kennedy argued that judges in the United States are biased against the business sector because they believe judges are more likely to rule against businesses than against other types of litigants.
The correct answer is business sector.
They claim this bias is particularly pronounced in employment discrimination, environmental regulation, and securities litigation cases. According to their argument, judges are more sympathetic to individuals or groups who they perceive to be victims of corporate wrongdoing and are, therefore, more likely to rule against businesses in cases where they are accused of such wrongdoing.
Additionally, they argue that judges may have a bias against businesses because they perceive corporations as having more excellent resources and, therefore, more remarkable ability to defend themselves in court. However, their arguments have been criticised and controversial, with some legal scholars and practitioners arguing that judges are biased in favour of corporations and the wealthy.
To know more about Justice Kennedy, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/11031375
#SPJ4
What does on a contingent fee basis mean?
A contingent fee basis, also known as a contingency fee, is a type of fee arrangement used in legal services. In this arrangement, the lawyer or law firm agrees to take on a client's case and only charges a fee if they are successful in obtaining a favorable outcome for the client.
If the case is unsuccessful, the lawyer or law firm does not receive a fee. Contingency fee arrangements are typically used in personal injury cases or other types of civil litigation where the client may not have the financial resources to pay for legal representation up front.
It allows clients to pursue legal action without the burden of paying high legal fees, and it incentivizes the lawyer to work hard to win the case since their compensation is tied to the outcome. The contingency fee is typically a percentage of the settlement or judgment awarded to the client.
The percentage varies depending on the complexity of the case, the amount of work involved, and the level of risk the lawyer is taking on by accepting the case. Before entering into a contingency fee agreement, clients should carefully review the terms and ask questions to ensure they understand the potential costs and risks involved.
To learn more about contingency fees
https://brainly.com/question/30846257
#SPJ4
Explain America's Open Door Policy? (China 1900)
The Open Door Policy was a foreign policy approach adopted by the United States toward China in 1900. The Open Door Policy aimed to ensure that all these powers would have equal access to China's markets and territory without one country dominating the others.
U.S. Secretary of State John Hay introduced the Open Door Policy in a series of notes to the foreign powers with interests in China. The notes proposed that all countries respect the territorial integrity of China and allow other nations equal access to its markets, including the right to establish commercial enterprises and lease land for economic purposes.
The Open Door Policy was an attempt by the United States to protect its commercial interests in China, as well as to promote international cooperation and avoid conflicts between the various foreign powers that had carved up China into spheres of influence.
To learn more about Open Door Policy, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/29772022
#SPJ4
The intentional tort of assault requires that:a. there be physical contact with the bodyb. the injured party have knowledge of the dangerc. the injured party be detained against his or her will d. the defendant intended to injure the plaintiffe. all of the other choices
Assault is an intentional tort that involves causing another person to have a reasonable apprehension or fear of imminent harmful or offensive contact. It does not require actual physical contact with the body, but rather the perception of an imminent threat of contact.
For example, if a person raises their hand to strike someone, but does not actually make physical contact, they may still be liable for assault.
In addition to the requirement of reasonable apprehension or fear, the injured party must also have knowledge of the danger. This means that they must be aware of the threat of harmful or offensive contact. If they are not aware of the danger, they cannot be said to have suffered an assault.
The other choices listed in the question are incorrect. Physical contact with the body is not necessary for assault, nor is detention against one's will. While the defendant may intend to injure the plaintiff in an assault case, intent alone is not sufficient to establish liability. Rather, the defendant must have intended to cause the plaintiff to have a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.
To know more about offensive contact visit:
https://brainly.com/question/31486668
#SPJ11
If a person is being threatened with an attack, another person has the privilege to:a. defend the victim by shooting the attackerb. defend the victim by using reasonable force c. defend the victim by arresting the attacker d. all of the specific choicese. none of the specific choices
The answer is b. defend the victim by using reasonable force. In most cases, deadly force is only justified if the defender reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to themselves or another person.
However, the use of force must be proportional to the threat faced by the defender. It means that the force used must not be excessive and should only be what is necessary to stop the attacker.
Additionally, it is important to note that citizens do not have the legal authority to arrest someone, as that is a task reserved for law enforcement officers. Therefore, options a and c are not valid. Finally, the answer is not d because the only specific choice that applies is b. Therefore, the correct answer is b. defend the victim by using reasonable force.
To know more about reasonable force visit:
https://brainly.com/question/30506278
#SPJ11
To establish the legal requirement of intent for an intentional tort:a. the wrongdoer must have known what he was doingb. the wrongdoer must have known that certain results could occurc. the wrongdoer must have known the possible consequences of his actd. all of the other specific choicese. none of the other specific choices
To establish the legal requirement of intent for an intentional tort: c. the wrong does must have known the possible consequences of his act.
What is the tort law's intent principle?Three fundamental rules govern all intentional torts: (1) intent is a requirement for liability; (2) each intentional tort must breach a distinct behavioral rule; and (3) all intentional torts require proof of the defendant's responsibility.
No actual harm must be done to the victim, but the actor must have planned to make an insulting or hurtful contact with them, and the victim must have been made aware of this intention immediately. In the context of an assault, "intention" denotes that the action was not accidental; the reason, however, is irrelevant.
To know more about intentional tort, refer to:
https://brainly.com/question/31306738
#SPJ1
Is an expert required to disclose, in connection with her opinion testimony, the facts on which she relied in forming her opinion?
Yes, an expert is generally required to disclose the facts on which they relied in forming their opinion as part of their testimony.
This is because the credibility and reliability of an expert's opinion depends on the foundation of factual information they used to reach their conclusions. In court cases, experts are often asked to submit written reports detailing their opinions and the basis for them.
This report must include the facts and data that the expert used, as well as any assumptions or limitations. During their testimony, the expert may be asked to explain how they arrived at their conclusions and provide further details about the facts they relied upon.
Failure to disclose this information could result in the expert's opinion being disregarded by the court as unreliable or irrelevant.
To know more about testimony visit:
https://brainly.com/question/29244222
#SPJ11
The focus of the Sedition Act of 1798 was to criminalize "any false, scandalous and malicious" statements about what?
The Sedition Act of 1798 was a controversial law passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by President John Adams.
The law aimed to suppress political opposition and criticism of the federal government during a time of heightened tensions with France. The act made it a crime to publish "any false, scandalous and malicious" statements about the federal government, including Congress, the president, and the judiciary.
The law was widely criticized as a violation of the First Amendment's of act protection of freedom of speech and the press, and several people were arrested and convicted under the law before it expired in 1801.
Learn more about Sedition Act here
https://brainly.com/question/27997208
#SPJ4
What are some of the other actors present in the courtroom that we discussed in class?
In addition to the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney, there are several other actors present in the courtroom. The bailiff is responsible for maintaining order and security in the courtroom.
Court reporters record everything that is said during the trial for the record. Witnesses are called to testify and provide evidence to support their side of the case. The jury, if present, is responsible for weighing the evidence presented and reaching a verdict.
Court interpreters may also be present to assist with communication if a party or witness does not speak the language of the court. Finally, members of the public, including family and friends of the parties involved, may attend the trial as spectators.
For more such questions on prosecutor, click on:
https://brainly.com/question/28893404
#SPJ11
fill in the blank. "Recent research suggests that ________ has/have contributed to the large drop in fertility rates in Brazil over the past several decades.
A) legalization of abortions
B) AIDS and malaria
C) exposure to environmental estrogens
D) soap operas
E) laws preventing women from having more than one child"
D) soap operas
Recent research suggests that D) soap operas have contributed to the large drop in fertility rates in Brazil over the past several decades.
Why is this so ?This surprising finding was based on a study that found that women who were exposed to soap operas that portrayed smaller families were more likely to have fewer children themselves.
The researchers suggested that these soap operas, which are very popular in Brazil, may have played a role in shaping social norms and attitudes around family size and childbearing.
Find out more on fertility rates at https://brainly.com/question/5609618
#SPJ1
Joe hands Mary a note he wrote that calls her terrible names, accuses her of horrible personal acts, and all sorts of other nonsense. Mary can bring a successful suit for:a. libelb. slanderc. defamation d. batterye. none of the other choices
Answer:
Mary can bring a successful suit for defamation.
Defamation is a legal term that refers to any false statement that harms a person's reputation. It includes both libel and slander. Libel refers to written defamation, while slander refers to spoken defamation.
In this scenario, Joe handed Mary a note that contained false and harmful statements about her, which can be considered libelous. Therefore, Mary can bring a successful suit for defamation.
Explanation:
In addition to the other elements of the offense, to obtain a robbery conviction a Texas prosecutor must establish that the defendant was in the course of committing:
In addition to the other elements of the offence, to obtain a robbery conviction in Texas, a prosecutor must establish that the defendant was committing theft at the time of the alleged robbery.
The correct answer is theft.
Specifically, under Texas law, robbery is defined as the "intentional, knowing, or reckless" act of taking property from another person through force, intimidation, or threat of violence while committing theft.
In other words, the prosecution must prove that the defendant used force, intimidation, or threat of violence to take property from another person while at the same time committing theft. If the prosecution cannot establish that the defendant was committing theft at the time of the alleged robbery, they may not be able to secure a robbery conviction.
To learn more about robbery, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/10411138
#SPJ4
A business can become involved in a tort action:a. if an individual is harmed or injured by the actions of the business or its employeesb. if an individual is injured by a product produced by the businessc. if a business harms another business d. all of the specific other choicese. none of the other specific choices
A business can become involved in a tort action if an individual is harmed or injured by the actions of the business or its employees.option(A)
This can include situations such as slip-and-fall accidents on the business premises, or injuries caused by the negligent or intentional actions of employees. Additionally, if an individual is injured by a product produced by the business, the business may be held liable for any harm caused. This is known as product liability.
However, a business may also be involved in a tort action if it harms another business, such as through unfair competition or intellectual property infringement. In summary, a business can be involved in a tort action under a variety of circumstances, but it typically involves harm or injury caused by the business or its products.
Learn more about business premises
https://brainly.com/question/30473722
#SPJ4
List 3 reasons why we should continue to have a correctional system. Explain each.
Answer:
There are several reasons why we should continue to have a correctional system:
1. Deterrence: The threat of punishment can deter people from committing crimes. Knowing that there are consequences for their actions can help people make better choices and avoid criminal behavior. The correctional system serves as a deterrent by punishing those who have committed crimes, and by providing an example to others who might be considering criminal behavior.
2. Rehabilitation: The correctional system can help rehabilitate offenders by providing education, job training, and counseling services. These programs can help offenders develop the skills they need to become productive members of society and reduce their likelihood of reoffending. By providing offenders with the tools they need to succeed, the correctional system can help reduce crime and make our communities safer.
3. Punishment: The correctional system serves as a form of punishment for those who have committed crimes. Punishment is an important aspect of the criminal justice system because it helps maintain social order and reinforces the idea that certain behaviors are not acceptable in society. The correctional system can provide a range of punishments, from fines and community service to imprisonment, depending on the severity of the crime. By punishing offenders, the correctional system can help provide a sense of justice to victims and their families.
L.B. Sullivan won his libel lawsuit at trial and at the Alabama Supreme Court level. What was his award?
L.B. Sullivan won his libel lawsuit at the trial court level and at the Alabama Supreme Court level. At trial, Sullivan was awarded $500,000 in damages, a substantial amount at the time.
The correct answer is $500,000.
However, the New York Times appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in favour of the newspaper. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution did not protect the publication of false statements about public officials unless those statements were made with "actual malice"—that is, with the knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard for whether they were true or false.
Because the statements in the case were not made with actual malice, the Supreme Court overturned Sullivan's libel verdict and damages award. As a result, Sullivan did not ultimately receive any damages from the New York Times in connection with the lawsuit.
To learn more about Alabama, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/10241194
#SPJ4
which of the following types of crimes is most likely to produce the longest prison sentence? select an answer and submit. for keyboard navigation, use the up/down arrow keys to select an answer. a misdemeanor b civil offense c felony d contempt of court
Felony is the type of crime which is most likely to produce the longest prison sentence. The correct option is c.
Felonies are extreme crimes that are punishable by using imprisonment for multiple 12 months, and in some cases, existence imprisonment or the loss of life penalty. Misdemeanors are much less serious offenses that commonly carry a sentence of much less than three hundred and sixty five days in prison, while civil offenses typically bring about fines or different penalties in place of jail time.
Contempt of courtroom is a prison price which could result in fines or imprisonment, however typically does no longer carry a prolonged prison sentence. The correct option is c.
Learn more about Felony at:
brainly.com/question/20348390
#SPJ4
T/F If the court appoints an expert witness, the court must permit the jury to be told when the expert witness testifies at trial that the expert witness was appointed by the court.
If the court appoints an expert witness, the court must permit the jury to be told when the expert witness testifies at trial that the expert witness was appointed by the court. True.
If the court appoints an expert witness, the fact that the witness was appointed by the court must be disclosed to the jury when the expert testifies at trial. This is because the appointment by the court may imply that the witness is impartial and objective, and may carry more weight with the jury than a witness retained by one of the parties.
The disclosure requirement also allows the parties to question the witness about the appointment and the basis for the expert's opinions. This helps to ensure that the jury has all the information it needs to make an informed decision based on the evidence presented.
Learn more about expert witness
https://brainly.com/question/29596349
#SPJ4
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan shows that it was concerned most with
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan shows that it was concerned most with protecting freedom of speech and the press under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The case involved a libel lawsuit filed by L.B. Sullivan, a public official in Montgomery, Alabama, against the New York Times over a newspaper advertisement critical of the city's treatment of civil rights activists. The Supreme Court's decision established essential protections for free speech and the press by raising the standard of proof required for public officials to succeed in a libel suit.
The Court ruled that to receive compensation for libel; public officials must demonstrate that the remarks were made with "actual malice," which means that the speaker was aware of the statement's falsity or acted carelessly towards it. This higher standard of proof protects the rights of journalists and publishers to report on matters of public interest without fear of being sued for defamation by public officials.
To learn more about U.S. Constitution, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/14453917
#SPJ4
FILL IN THE BLANK. The proximate cause of an injury is the _______ cause of the injury. a. legalb. definite c. probabled. most likely e. foreseeable
The proximate cause of the injury is the legal cause of injury.
The proximate cause of injury is the action of a person who must follow the duties or responsibility that a person or a group of people has caused the individual or group of individual's in the society. The causes that are performed by the people are effected and legal actions are taken on the illegal or criminal activity.
The proximate causes leads to lawful activity and causes for example accident, violence, illegal marketing and scalds that are done in the external sites. If there are more than two losses then according to the law the loss that is nearest to the insurance must be claimed and the claim must be legal and should have certain proof that has to be provided to the individual firms.
For example if the ship has lost goods from the fire or if the goods in the ship are lost due to the theft, then the proximate cause says that according to the law the nearest loss that is suitable must be claimed by the insurance company. There are most accrued injuries in common:
OveruseAcuteChronicSo the legal cause is very important for the proximate causes that provides the immediate cause in the harm or the cause. The legal cause is the action that is taken to increase the effect of affliction. So the answer to the approximate and contrast high-level ultimate causes for the real reason that has actually happened to the person.
To know more about more about the proximate cause that cause injury for legal cause follow the link below:
https://brainly.com/question/12644777
#SPJ4
how does the judges being sufficiently independent from the executive mean they can protect our civil liberties
The independence of judges from the executive branch of government is a key factor in protecting civil liberties.
This independence means that judges are not beholden to the government, and are therefore more likely to make decisions based solely on the law, without political pressure from the executive branch.
This allows the judiciary to serve as a check on the power of the government and to protect civil liberties.
For example, if the executive branch were to pass a law that is in violation of constitutional rights, an independent judiciary would have the power to declare the law unconstitutional and thus protect those rights.
This independence also allows for judges to be impartial when ruling on cases, and to make decisions based on the facts and the law, rather than political considerations. In this way, the independence of the judiciary protects civil liberties and ensures that the government does not exceed its authority.
Know more about judiciary here
https://brainly.com/question/14305259#
#SPJ11
