Exam (elaborations)
Para 2 Test2
- Course
- Institution
Completed session 2, test 2
[Show more]
Content preview
Section 1:Trespass
- unlawful entry, wrongful entry, breaking
and entering, breach, encroachment, infiltration, infringement, illegal entry, forced
entry, intrude, invasion of privacy
Restroom
- indecency, sex separation, bathroom, public
restroom, washroom, public, john, head, latrine, women’s room, men’s room
Excessively Long
- disproportionately long, unreasonably
long, extremely long, lengthy, undesirably long
Slipped and Fell
- lose balance, trip, wet floor, fall,
tumble, spill, stumble, collapse, plummet, crash
Grocery Store
- supermarket, convenience store, mom
and pop shop, bodega, corner store, food mart, market, retail store
Informed
- instruction, direction, guidance
Store Personnel
- employee, associate, manager, worker,
assistant manager, hired person
Employees Only
- restricted area, private, access,
trespass, wrongful entry
Section 2:
1.
This opinion is not on point since the argument was
in relation to bankruptcy, not divorce. It is a primary persuasive for a court
in Dallas, Texas because this case took place in Louisiana. The opinion does not
support Mrs. Smith’s contention because the court found that the jewelry
was community property. However, they only came to that conclusion because
Mr. Soule and his wife deliberately listed the jewelry as community property
in writing in order to receive bank loans.
2.
This opinion is not on point since the argument was
not if the gifted jewelry was separate property, but if the wife could collect insurance
checks off of that jewelry. It is a primary persuasive for a court in
Dallas, Texas because the case took place in New York. The opinion does not support
Mrs. Smith’s contention because the ownership of gifted jewelry from husband
to wife was explicitly written into their prenuptial agreement. The wife
has it in writing that the jewelry is her separate property, while Mrs. Smith does not.
This case also does not mention anything about jewelry that the wife purchased
with community money. 3.
This opinion is on point since it is the same argument
over if jewelry gifted to the wife from the husband is community or separate property.
The opinion is a primary persuasive for a court in Dallas, Texas because
it took place in Florida. The opinion does not support Mrs. Smith since the
court reversed their decision and found that the jewelry was community property.
Had the initial opinion not been reversed, it would have supported Mrs. Smith’s
claim.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller devon2green. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
75323 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now