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

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:

So 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

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

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

Recent research suggests that D) soap operas have contributed to the large drop in fertility rates in Brazil over the past several decades.

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

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

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

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

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