What email address or phone number would you like to use to sign in to Docs.com?
If you already have an account that you use with Office or other Microsoft services, enter it here.
Or sign in with:
Signing in allows you to download and like content, and it provides the authors analytical data about your interactions with their content.
Embed code for: BUL 3130 - Week 8 - Your Name
Select a size
BUL3130 – Week 8 – Ken Davis
1. pg 505, 24.1 Environmental Impact Statement
Is an environment impact statement required? In this case an environment impact statement is required because according to EIS this is a document that be prepared for any prosed legislation or major federal action that significantly affects the quality of human environment. For example, Methow Recreation Inc. is applied for a special-use permit to make room for more skiers on private land; as a result, most state, local government have enacted laws that require an EIS to be prepared regarding proposed state and local government action as well as private development.
2. pg 506, 24.6 Nuclear Waste
Are these reasons sufficient to prevent the reopening of the nuclear power plants? These issues are sufficient to prevent the reopening of the nuclear power plants because power plants could pose a real problem. The power plant are liable according to OSHA regulations and faces criminal charge if somebody get hurt; as a result, the accident put fear in the community of the people. Even though no one was hurt from the accident, the logical damage left the people that they could have be serious hurt. This power plant should stay close for the people safety in a logical way.
3. pg 506, 24.7 Endangered Species
Who wins? The winner is Sierra because according to Endangered Species Act (EPA) the act requires the EPA and the Department of Commerce to designate critical habitats for each endangered and threatened species, real estate and other development in these areas is prohibited or severely limited. For example, U.S. Forest service is charged with duties to recreation , protect for wildlife, but they lease the national forest out to some private companies right were the red-cockaded woodpecker live this impact will hurt the bird living area, so the red-cockaded woodpecker is an endangered species by EPA the bird is cover by federal law.
4. pg 527, 25.3 Life Estate and Remainder
Who wins? The winner is the estate itself because Julianita was devised as an executioner of the estate by Mr. Bowles before his demise. According to his will she gets to devise or handle his estate to give his herself a portion as well as his children. Also, Mr. Bowles will give his children the same thing, so this falls under concurrent ownership. This issue was worked out beforehand who get what and what is passed on which child.
5 pg 528, 25.7 Implied Warranty of Habitability
Has Love lawfully terminated the lease? In this case Love lawfully terminated the lease because the implied warranty of habitability was breach, which state premises must be fit, safe, and suitable to live or use as being residential. Even though the landlord addressed the problem the problem kept coming, so this put the landlord in default. Also, this gives them the right to move out of the apartment because of breach of contract. This is a lawfully terminated the lease in a court law.
6 . pg 527, 25.4 Reversion
Who wins? The winner is defendant because according to W.E. and Jennie Hutton conveyed land they owned to the trustees of schools of District Number One as a ‘Warranty Deed’ to be used for school purpose only; otherwise to revert to grantor. Therefore the school is a guarantor under contract of Lease. The school has the right to stops having class at the school. Mahrenholz have no ownership in the school.
7. pg 528, 25.6 Zoning
Who wins? The winner is State of Missouri because according zoning ordinances contrast zoning regulate establish land use districts within the municipality, restrict the height, size, and location of building site, and establish aesthetic requirements or limitations for the exterior of building. In this case the city of Ladue, Missouri Architectural Board had examines the build plan, but they determine that the build plan was not in conformity with the style and design around structures in the area, so this is why State of Missouri win the case.