WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE “PUBLIC USES” FOR TO GOVERNMENT OBTAINING LAND THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN.
This test has a time limit of 3 hours.You are to complete the test within the given time limit. When the time limit ends you will have the option to continue taking the test by clicking on the “Cancel” button which will appear. Please note that points may be deducted if you choose to exceed the allowable time limit. Warnings appear when half the time, 5 minutes, 1 minute, and 30 seconds remain. Multiple Attempts Not allowed. This test can only be taken once.
The power of the U.S. Government to take property from a private individual and use it for public purposes is:
Which of the following “developing countries” were exempted by the Kyoto Treaty from following the initial emissions reductions standards?
The United States
Concerns over national security and the environment led congress to pass which items?
A requirement that the FBI and Pentagon conduct a national intelligence estimate on global warming and climate change
A requirement that the CIA and Pentagon conduct a national intelligence estimate on global warming and climate change
A requirement that the CIA and NSA conduct a national intelligence estimate on global warming and climate change.
A requirement that the CIA and FBI conduct a national intelligence estimate on global warming and climate change.
Which of the following is an example of a significant environmental protection regulation passed by the Federal Government?
The Clean Air Act
The Resource and Recovery Act
The National Environmental Property Act
All of the above
None of the above
According to law professor Thomas Joo, the best group of persons for addressing the environmental concerns facing the world today is:
Directors and Officers
Which of the following would be permissible “public uses” for to government obtaining land through Eminent Domain.
A public highway or road.
A sports stadium and/or arena
The rezoning of land for residential use.
Both A and B
All of the above
In FTC v. Silueta Distributors, Inc. and Stanley Klavir, Judge Armstrong ruled
That good faith reliance on another person’s representation is a valid defense to liability under the FTC Act.
The good faith reliance on another person’s representations is not a valid defense to liability under the FTC Act.
The good faith reliance on another person’s representations is not an issues in determining liability under the FTC Act.
None of the above.
In the case of IMS Health, Inc., et al v. Kelly Ayotte, Attorney General of New Hampshire, Judge Selya argues that