Warning: file_put_contents(/var/www/onek.dataloop.ca/lib/cache/slugs.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/onek.dataloop.ca/templates/default/template_post.php on line 287

Warning: file(/var/www/onek.dataloop.ca/lib/cache/slugs.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/onek.dataloop.ca/templates/default/template_post.php on line 297

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /var/www/onek.dataloop.ca/templates/default/template_post.php on line 305
M=d Times V
logo
Archive

M=d Times V

author
Bob Roberts
• Friday, 05 March, 2021
• 8 min read

Density equals mass over volume, then what do mass and volume equal ? Mass and weight are not technically the same thing, but close enough.

(Source: bestbookcentre.com)

Contents

Mass is not variable, but weight depends on the force of gravity. If I weigh 160 lbs on Earth, for example, I weigh only about 26 lbs on the moon, but my mass remains the same.

Volume is the 3D measurement of space, if that makes sense, for example the amount of water you could fit inside a cup. PS Next time post this kind of questions in the “Homework Help” section.

Residency: Medical College of Virginia (July 1, 1987 – June 30, 1991) The Equation of Exchange addresses the relationship between money and price level, and between money and nominal GDP.

Velocity is the number of times the average dollar is spent to buy final goods and services in a given year. Velocity (V) and Real GDP (Y) are effectively constant in the short run, therefore any changes in money supply (M), will cause a proportional change in the price level (P).

This equation demonstrated a direct relationship between price and money supply. Choose a calculation for density p, mass m or Volume V.

(Source: www.bestbookcentre.com)

Enter the other two values and the calculator will solve for the third in the selected units. Density is defined as mass per unit volume.

NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, a Corporation, Ralph D. Abernathy, Fred L. Shuttles worth, S. S. Sea, Sr., and J. E. Lowery, Defendants. NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, a Corporation, Martin Luther King, Jr., Fred L. Shuttles worth, J. E. Lowery, Ralph D. Abernathy, and S. S. Sea, Sr., Defendants.

*920 Steiner, Drum & Baker and Calvin M. White sell, Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiff Parks. Clinton E. Moore and Ralph Smith, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiff Patterson.

Charles S. Conley, Montgomery, Ala., for Martin Luther King, Jr. After this submission, this Court on May 24, 1961, ordered that Martin Luther King, Jr., one of the resident defendants in the case where John Patterson is a plaintiff, submit to oral interrogation by deposition.

This action by the Court was necessitated by reason of the representations to this Court by counsel in the John Patterson case to the effect that they expected to prove upon trial that Martin Luther King, Jr., was the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, of which the other individual defendants are members of the executive committee, and that the individual defendants in each of these cases, through the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, specifically or impliedly authorized or ratified the publication of the alleged libelous article that forms the basis for these two actions. In the Frank W. Parks case, the plaintiff sued the defendant The New York Times Company, a New York corporation, and Ralph D. Abernathy, Fred L. Shuttles worth, S. S. Sea, Sr., and J. E. Lowery, in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, for damages claimed to have been incurred on March 29, 1960, by reason of the publication of an alleged libelous article in The New York Times, a newspaper published by The New York Times Company.

lucien jean baptiste maurin lithograph wikipedia
(Source: en.wikipedia.org)

The individual defendants are resident citizens of the State of Alabama and were such at the time this suit was brought. In the John Patterson case, the plaintiff is a resident citizen of the State of Alabama and was such at the time of bringing this action.

A brief chronological history of these cases is essential to an intelligent understanding of the questions presented by the motions to remand. In the Parks case, the action was filed in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, on April 19, 1960.

Service is claimed to have been effected on the defendant The New York Times Company on or about April 21, 1960. The defendant The New York Times Company removed this case to this Court on April 13, 1961.

On the same date, the plaintiff filed his motion to remand this action to the State court. Service was claimed to have been obtained on the defendant The New York Times Company on or about June 1, 1960.

The New York Times Company, a Corporation, Ralph D. Abernathy, Fred L. Shuttles worth, S. S. Sea, Sr., and J. E. Lowery, Defendants, was tried in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, commencing November 1, 1960. The Sullivan case terminated on or about November 3, 1960, with a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff against all defendants.

phoenix lights ufo arizona documentary classic alone releases press psychedelic 2008 conference
(Source: www.psychedelicadventure.net)

The basis for the motion to remand in each of these cases is that this Court is without jurisdiction to hear and determine each case for the reason that the petition of The New York Times Company for removal was not filed in this Court, as required by statute, within twenty days after the receipt by the defendant The New York Times Company of a copy of the pleading setting forth the claim for relief by plaintiff in each case; further, that the individual defendants, except King in the Patterson case, are resident citizens of the State of Alabama and therefore there is no diversity within the meaning of Title 28, § 1332, United States Code Annotated. The theory of the defendant The New York Times Company in removing each of these cases to this Court is that at all times material to this litigation the defendant The New York Times Company was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business in *922 New York City; that these cases are actions for damages against the defendants arising out of an alleged libel of the plaintiff in each case by the defendants on or about March 29, 1960; that this Court has jurisdiction in each of these cases under § 1332, Title 28, United States Code Annotated, by reason of the diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff in each case and the defendant The New York Times Company but for the fraudulent joiner of the individual defendants (except King, a resident of the State of Georgia), who are resident citizens of the State of Alabama; that the joiner by the plaintiff in each case of the defendants Abernathy, Shuttles worth, Sea, Sr., and Lowery, was fraudulent, because there was at the time of the commencement of each of these actions and also at the time of the removal of same no reasonable basis under the law of Alabama upon which the liability of said individual defendants to the plaintiff in either case could be established for and on account of the alleged libelous publication made the basis for each action; and that the said resident defendants were joined in each of these cases for the sole purpose of fraudulently preventing the petitioner The New York Times Company from removing these cases to the United States District Court for trial.

This Court, in each of these cases, in an effort to determine whether there is any legal basis whatsoever for the claim asserted against the resident defendants, has painstakingly studied all the evidence submitted and available, including a transcript of the trial in the Sullivan case. This Court reaches the conclusion that from the evidence presented upon the motion to remand in each of these cases there is no legal basis whatsoever for the claim asserted against the resident defendants Abernathy, Shuttles worth, Sea, Sr., and Lowery.

From the facts available to this Court, no liability on the part of the four resident defendants existed under any recognized theory of law; this is true even with the application of the Alabama “scintilla rule.” Whenever in any case a plaintiff joins resident and nonresident defendants, the nonresident is privileged by statute to remove the action to the district court and challenge the good faith of the plaintiff in joining the resident defendants.

The defendant The New York Times Company in each of these cases sustained that burden by clear and convincing evidence that compels the conclusion that the joiner in each of these cases of the resident defendants was without any reasonable legal ground. In such cases, where it is clear from the evidence that the resident defendants cannot be liable to the plaintiff on any reasonable legal ground, the plaintiff is suing improperly and the federal court should not hesitate to retain jurisdiction after removal by the nonresident defendant.

“A civil case, at law or in equity, presenting a controversy between citizens of different states and involving the requisite jurisdictional amount, is one which may be removed *923 by the defendant, if not a resident of the state in which the case is brought; and this right of removal cannot be defeated by a fraudulent joiner of a resident defendant having no real connection with the controversy. So, when in such a case a resident defendant is joined with the nonresident, the joiner, even although fair upon its face, may be shown by a petition for removal to be only a fraudulent device to prevent a removal; but the showing must consist of a statement of facts rightly engendering that conclusion.

rottweiler snow dogs bunny dog breeds puppy rottweilers female talitha reverse training awesome male flickr train easy smartest sneezing choosing
(Source: www.mvtimes.com)

Merely to traverse the allegations upon which the liability of the resident defendant is rested, or to apply the epithet `fraudulent' to the joiner, will not suffice: the showing must be such as compels the conclusion that the joiner is without right and made in bad faith, as was the case in Weaker v. In the cases now before this Court, neither plaintiff contends that at a trial of this action he could or would offer any additional testimony, except the plaintiff Patterson, who, through his attorneys, contended that he expected the evidence to develop from the defendant King that King was the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, of which the other individual defendants were members of the executive committee, and that said individual defendants through the Southern Christian Leadership Conference specifically or impliedly authorized or ratified the publication of the alleged libelous article.

The evidence shows that the article in question was placed in The New York Times by an individual named John Murray, who was acting for a committee to defend Martin Luther King, Jr. Murray inserted the names of the four resident defendants as sponsors of the article. Neither resident defendant knew his name had been used until some time after the publication of the article in question.

“Let us set out here the principle of ratification which will support a suit in trespass where it was by an agent without authority. Campbell, 71 Alae. 271, at pages 289, 290: *924 “`There is no difficulty about the general rules of law governing the ratification of an agent's unauthorized act by a principal.

It is settled that where such an agent, acting in the name and for the benefit of his principal, commits an indictable trespass DE bonds apostates, or, in other words, a trespass which is voidable merely and not wholly void, as imposing a civil and not a criminal liability upon the perpetrator, the principal, after being fully informed of its tortious nature, may adopt it as his own act, and such ratification ordinarily binds the principal to the same extent, and holds him to the same civil responsibilities as if he had originally authorized it. And for many purposes the ratification will relate back to the date of the unauthorized act to constitute the principal a trespasser ab initio.

“`But to hold the principal responsible for damages, in such cases, it must appear that he ratified the wrongful act of the agent with a full knowledge of its tortious character. “`Where the relation of agency exists, and the principal derives a benefit from an act beyond the scope of the agency, the principal will be held to have ratified such unauthorized act by acquiescence, if, after being fully informed of what has been done, he fails to express his dissatisfaction within a reasonable time.

depression sad health young symptoms african depressed american woman mental lady mood among looking teen lonely floor wellness breast disorders
(Source: www.hopkinsmedicine.org)

He may stay out of federal court by failing to claim the requisite amount or by naming in good faith resident defendants. However, whereupon removal there is presented the question of fraudulent joiner the legal principles are different.

In such instances of fraudulent joiner, there is no rigid twenty-day period which applies, and the courts will accept and should accept petitions filed within a reasonable time after the right to removal becomes apparent (that is, after the fraudulent joiner becomes evident). From the evidence presented to this Court upon these motions, this Court is of the opinion, and so finds, that The New York Times Company filed its petition to remove in each of these cases within a reasonable time after it became apparent that the plaintiff in each of these cases had no legal basis for proceeding against the resident defendants, and the defendant The New York Times Company, after such became evident and on April 13, 1961, promptly removed each of these cases to this Court.

There is no contention by either plaintiff here that The New York Times Company could have or should have petitioned this Court for removal within twenty days of the receipt of the complaints in April and *925 May 1960. This rule was laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in Powers v.

“However, the time limitation prescribed by the removal statute within which a petition for removal may be filed is not jurisdictional, but is merely modal and formal, and failure to file the petition within the allotted time may be waived, or objection to such failure may be precluded by estoppel.” The test in delayed removals because of “fraudulent joiner” is whether the time is reasonable.

This Court specifically finds that in each of these cases the removal to this Court on April 13, 1961, was within a reasonable time after it could have and should have become apparent to the defendant The New York Times Company that there was no reasonable basis under the law of Alabama upon which the liability of the individual defendants could be established for and on account of the alleged libelous publication made the basis for plaintiffs' actions. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway, supra; Kansas City Suburban Belt Ry.

(Source: globoesporte.globo.com)

959, and the opinion of Judge Grooms in the Northern District of Alabama in February 1961, in Fidelity & Casualty Company of N. Y., a Corporation, etc. This Court does not consider it necessary for an adjudication of the questions now presented by these motions to remand, but it is appropriate, however, to observe that the plaintiff in each of these cases is, in the opinion of this Court, stopped to assert that the removal petition of the defendant The New York Times Company in each of these cases was not timely filed.

In accordance with the foregoing, this Court specifically finds and concludes that the joiner by each of these plaintiffs of the resident defendants Abernathy, Shuttles worth, Sea, Sr., and Lowery, was fraudulent as that term is used in a legal sense in removal cases, and that the removal of each of these actions to this Court on April 13, 1961, was timely and proper. NOTES Section 1446, Title 28, United States Code Annotated.

Other Articles You Might Be Interested In

01: Rideaway Girths
02: Riding Boots For Horseback Riding
03: Riding Helmets For Horseback Riding
04: Riding Lessons Abbotsford
05: Riding Lessons Aberdeenshire
06: Riding Lessons Aiken Sc
07: Riding Lessons Airdrie
08: Riding Lessons Albuquerque
09: Riding Lessons Annapolis Valley
10: Riding Lessons Ann Arbor
Sources
1 www.yellowpages.com - https://www.yellowpages.com/ann-arbor-mi/horse-riding-lessons
2 www.thumbtack.com - https://www.thumbtack.com/mi/ann-arbor/horseback-riding/
3 www.rideannarbor.com - http://www.rideannarbor.com/
4 www.coachkaraeq.com - https://www.coachkaraeq.com/
5 www.hedgeandturffarm.com - https://www.hedgeandturffarm.com/
6 www.cedarridgeequestriancenter.com - https://www.cedarridgeequestriancenter.com/new-page
7 www.usef.org - https://www.usef.org/learning-center/start-riding
8 www.windemereequestriancenter.com - http://www.windemereequestriancenter.com/
9 www.stc-ridingcentre.com - https://www.stc-ridingcentre.com/
10 www.a2gov.org - https://www.a2gov.org/departments/police/community-engagement/Pages/Programs.aspx
11 www.h2hranch.com - http://www.h2hranch.com/