shelves or racks should be placed all around the walls of the store

The following assumptions are made during quantification when using the consumption method, it is assumed that all the morbidity statistics are accurate

WHAT IS THE FIRST THING YOU SHOULD DO AS AN ESTHETICIAN, IF A CLIENT IS INJURED DURING A SERVICE IS STOP THE SERVICE.

WHERE ARE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS LOCATED IN THE ESTHETICS LAB BUILDING?

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE PART OF THE ASEPTIC PROCEDURE?

WHERE ARE THE FIRST AID KITS LOCATED IN THE LAB AREAS?

Crazy Slides, Inc. (“Crazy Slides”) is an amusement park located in Phoenix, Arizona. Crazy Slides has several high-speed waterslides. Crazy Slides has a website advertising the park, which sells tickets online to individuals all over the world that come to Arizona to enjoy the park. Crazy Slides’ website informs a customer as he or she is purchasing a ticket that the purchase of a ticket is subject to Crazy Slides’ Terms and Agreement. A customer must scroll through such Terms and Agreement section before the individual can purchase a ticket. One of the terms is a provision which states that both the parties agree that any litigation which may arise from the purchase of a ticket must be brought in a court in Phoenix, Arizona. Plaintiff is a citizen of Nebraska. Plaintiff purchases a ticket to Crazy Slides through Crazy Slide’s website. Plaintiff reviewed the Terms and Agreement before purchasing his ticket. Plaintiff had never been to Arizona before. Unfortunately, while at the Crazy Slides park in Arizona, Plaintiff slipped and sprained his toe, incurring medical costs of $700. Subquestion # 1: Assume for purposes of this subquestion only that Plaintiff files a lawsuit against Crazy Slides in a state court in Nebraska for negligence based upon Arizona common law. Assume that Crazy Slides has sold over 3,000 tickets to Nebraska residents over the last five years. Crazy Slides files a motion to dismiss the case based upon its Terms and Agreement, which requires any suit to be brought in Phoenix, Arizona. Please fully analyze whether the Nebraska state court should grant or deny Crazy Slides’ motion. Subquestion #2: Assume for purposes of this subquestion only that Plaintiff files a lawsuit in a state court in Phoenix, Arizona for negligence based upon Arizona common law. Crazy Slides immediately files documents to remove the case to the federal district court in Phoenix, Arizona. Plaintiff files a response in the federal district court to challenge this removal based upon a lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the federal district court. Please fully analyze whether the federal district court in Phoenix, Arizona has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s case. 

Patricia, a New York citizen, was injured while on a guided tour during her vacation in Hawaii when a car lost control and collided with her Segway. Once home in New York, she filed a lawsuit in New York State court against the driver of the car (a citizen of Hawaii) alleging that the driver was negligent in his operation of the vehicle. Patricia hired a local process server to serve the summons and complaint on the driver at his home in Hawaii. If you represented the driver, which of the following motions to dismiss would most likely be successful?

A car driven by a foreign citizen collided with a vehicle driven by a resident of the Southern District of State A. The accident occurred in the Northern District of State A. The State A driver brought a negligence action claiming $100,000 in damages in the Southern District of State A, and the defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The court denied both motions.Was the ruling by the district court correct?

A corporation has been the subject of several news reports charging that the pollution put out by its factory endangers 5,000 residents of a subdivision. The corporation filed an action naming all 5,000 residents as defendants and seeking a declaratory judgment that it is not liable for damaging their health, and the court properly certified the action as a class action. Per court order, detailed notice of the suit is posted on every light pole throughout the subdivision, but the residents are not notified individually.Was notice in this case constitutional?