Aplaintiff filed a civil action based on negligence against a defendant in federal district court, alleging that the defendant negligently ran a red light at an intersection and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle, causing the plaintiff's injuries. a week after the close of discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the defendant was negligent. with the motion, the plaintiff filed (i) his own sworn affidavit, which stated that the traffic signal was green as he entered the intersection, (ii) an affidavit of a witness who was driving the car behind him, which stated that the witness saw the entire incident and that the plaintiff's traffic signal was green as he approached and entered the intersection; and (iii) an affidavit of another witness, which stated that she saw the entire incident and that the defendant's signal had been red for several seconds before the defendant entered the intersection and was still red when the defendant entered the intersection. the defendant filed a response to the motion, noting that her answer denied negligence and further denied that her traffic signal was red, and argued that the issue of negligence and the issue of whether her traffic signal was red were in dispute, so those issues should be tried to a jury. how should the court rule on the plaintiff's motion?

the correct answer is (i) his own sworn affidavit, which stated that the traffic signal was green as he entered the intersection. The court should grant the plaintiff's motion. If a party fails to support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact, the court may consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion, grant summary judgment if appropriate, give the party an opportunity to address the fact, or issue any other appropriate order. Here, the plaintiff came forward with affidavits supporting his contention that the light was red when the defendant entered the intersection. The defendant here must counter those affidavits with her own or risk summary judgment being entered against her.

Explanation: (ii) is incorrect because, in a summary judgment motion, a party may not rest on pleading allegations (save for the limited exceptions when the pleading is verified or when the pleadings show a material fact is not in dispute). (iii) is incorrect. Although the plaintiff bears the initial burden of coming forward with evidence, the plaintiff has done so here by presenting affidavits on the issue.

i’m   sure probably just geuss and see which one you can get right, i’m pretty sure it is the combination of goods and services

na idade média, existia o santo ofício, responsável pela censura. hoje em dia, em um país democrático, temos algo que se assemelha a essa medida que é quando o governo impõe censura a um indivíduo ou meio de comunicação.

por constituição:

"art. 5º da constituição federal - inc. ix - é livre a expressão da atividade intelectual, artística, científica e de comunicação, independentemente de censura ou licença;

liberdade de expressão a garantia assegurada a qualquer indivíduo de se manifestar, buscar e receber ideias e informações de todos os tipos, com ou sem a intervenção de terceiros, por meio de linguagens oral, escrita, artística ou qualquer outro meio de comunicação. "

esse direito da constituição, quando contrariado, é o mais próximo ao julgamento político de obras e ações da antiguidade.