Follow instagrm at ➜ mvnnyvibes

John novosel was employed by nationwide insurance company for fifteen years. novosel had been a model employee and, at the time of discharge, was a district claims manager and a candidate for the position of division claims manager. during novosel's fifteenth year of employment, nationwide circulated a memorandum requesting the participation of all employees in an effort to lobby the pennsylvania state legislature for the passage of a certain bill before the body. novosel, who had privately indicated his disagreement with nationwide's political views, refused to lend his support to the lobby, and his employment with nationwide was terminated. novosel brought two separate claims against nationwide, arguing, first, that his discharge for refusing to lobby the state legislature on behalf of nationwide constituted the tort of wrongful discharge in that it was arbitrary, malicious, and contrary to public policy. novosel also contended that nationwide breached an implied contract guaranteeing continued employment so long as his job performance was satisfactory. what decision as to each claim?

You meet that special person and get married. amazingly your spouse has exactly the same income you do 47,810. if your tax status is now married filing jointly what is your tax liability

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.