Who likes taco bell because i do

Nellie lumpkin, who suffered from dementia, was admitted to the picayune convalescent center, a nursing home. because of her mental condition, her daughter, beverly mcdaniel, signed the admissions agreement. it included a clause requiring the par- ties to submit any dispute to arbitration. after lumpkin left the center two years later, she filed a suit against picayune to recover damages for mistreatment and malpractice. [covenant health & rehabilitation of picayune, lp v. lumpkin, 23 so.2d 1092 (miss. app. 2009)] (see page 91.) 1. is it ethical for this dispute—involving negligent medical care, not a breach of a commercial contract—to be forced into arbitration? why or why not? discuss whether medical facilities should be able to impose arbitration when there is generally no bargaining over such terms.

What should a food worker use to retrieve ice from an ice machine?

Cooper sues company a in state court in south carolina, where he lives, for negligence alleging personal injury and property damage of $100,000 after a truck driven by an employee of company a rear-ended his pickup truck. company a is incorporated in delaware, has its headquarters in new york, but does a substantial amount of business in south carolina. claiming diversity of citizenship, company a seeks removal to federal district court, but cooper opposes the motion. which of the following is true regarding whether the case may be properly removed to federal district court? the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and if company a's nerve center is in a state other than south carolina, then the case may be properly removed to federal court.the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and because company a is incorporated and has its headquarters in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is incorporated in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a's headquarters, nerve center, or principal place of business is located.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is headquartered in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a is incorporated and regardless of the location of its nerve center.because the amount in controversy fails to satisfy jurisdictional requirements, regardless of the location of company a, the case may not be removed to federal court.