-
Определите частеречную принадлежность слова "лиха" в поговорке "Лиха беда начало".
-
Предмет:
Русский язык -
Автор:
garrettblack - 6 лет назад
-
Ответы 6
-
так это прилагательное?
-
Автор:
kiwimonroe - 6 лет назад
-
0
-
-
??????????????
-
Автор:
hunterf47f - 6 лет назад
-
0
-
-
отвечаййййййййййй
-
Автор:
georgie - 6 лет назад
-
0
-
-
Да, только краткое, так и пиши, краткое прилагательное)
-
Автор:
casianovehx - 6 лет назад
-
0
-
-
а если в вариантах ответа есть только прилагательное
-
Автор:
oakleye7sx - 6 лет назад
-
0
-
-
В данном случае «лиха» – сокращение от прилагательного «лихая». Причем в словаре В. И. Даля толкования этому прилагательному даны довольно различные – от «молодой» до «лукавый». Здесь же мы можем четко проследить взаимосвязь со словом «залихватский», то есть задорный. Такое довольно легкомысленное отношение к проблеме – типичная черта русского национального характера.
-
Автор:
guzman - 6 лет назад
-
0
-
-
Добавить свой ответ
Еще вопросы
- треба розв'язати рівняння x+x*2(x+24)=160
-
Причины различий рас. НЕ по отдельности, пожалуйста
-
Предмет:
География -
Автор:
queeniesy4h - 6 лет назад
-
Ответов:
1 -
Смотреть
-
-
Помогите перевести пожалуйста
Legal activity in the State and municipal authorities
Test
Assignment 1
Scan and translate the text
U.S. Supreme Court
Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967)
Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco
No. 92
Argued February 15, 1967
Decided June 5, 1967
387 U.S. 523
Syllabus
Appellant was charged with violating the San Francisco Housing Code for refusing, after three efforts by city housing inspectors to secure his consent, to allow a warrantless inspection of the ground-floor quarters which he leased and residential use of which allegedly violated the apartment building's occupancy permit. Claiming the inspection ordinance unconstitutional for failure to require a warrant for inspections, appellant while awaiting trial, sued in a State Superior Court for a writ of prohibition, which the court denied. Relying on Frank v. Maryland and similar cases, the District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the ordinance did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The State Supreme Court denied a petition for hearing.
Held:
1. The Fourth Amendment bars prosecution of a person who has refused to permit a warrantless code enforcement inspection of his personal residence. Frank v. Maryland, supra, pro tanto overruled. Pp. 387 U. S. 528-534.
(a) The basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment, which is enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth, through its prohibition of "unreasonable" searches and seizures is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials. P. 387 U. S. 528.
(b) With certain carefully defined exceptions, an unconsented warrantless search of private property is "unreasonable." Pp. 387 U. S. 528-529.
(c) Contrary to the assumption of Frank v. Maryland, supra, Fourth Amendment interests are not merely "peripheral" where municipal fire, health, and housing inspection programs are involved whose purpose is to determine the existence of physical conditions not complying with local ordinances. Those programs, moreover, are enforceable by criminal process, as is refusal to allow an inspection. Pp. 387 U. S. 529-531.
(d) Warrantless administrative searches cannot be justified on the grounds that they make minimal demands on occupants;
that warrant in such cases are unfeasible; or that area inspection programs could not function under reasonable search warrant requirements. Pp. 387 U. S. 531-533.
2. Probable cause upon the basis of which warrants are to be issued for area code enforcement inspections is not dependent on the inspector's belief that a particular dwelling violates the code, but on the reasonableness of the enforcement agency's appraisal of conditions in the area as a whole. The standards to guide the magistrate in the issuance of such search warrants will necessarily vary with the municipal program being enforced. Pp. 387 U. S. 534-539.
3. Search warrants which are required in nonemergency situations should normally be sought only after entry is refused. Pp. 387 U. S. 539-540.
4. In the nonemergency situation here, appellant had a right to insist that the inspectors obtain a search warrant. P. 387 U. S. 540,
Vacated and remanded.
Assignment 2
Copy out the key words from the text.
Assignment 3
Answer the following questions:
1. What does de novo mean in legal terms?
2. What are the essential elements of the rule of law?
-
Предмет:
Английский язык -
Автор:
amir160 - 6 лет назад
-
Ответов:
1 -
Смотреть
-
- из двух сёл расстояние между которыми равно 7 км, одновременно начали движение пешеход и велосипедист. скорость пешехода равна 3,6 км/ч, а велосепедиста - 12 км/ч. через какое время после начала движения расстояние между ними будет 1,4 км. спасибо заранее!
Топ пользователей
-
Fedoseewa27
35934 -
Askold
2792 -
Pikachu
2228 -
hobbesbowers
2116 -
kaylynnbarron676
1818 -
女fei
1240 -
yulia-kaplina
1158 -
Poinntt
946 -
Bars
930 -
Queenmagic18
770
How much to ban the user?
1 hour
1 day
100 years