What did supreme court say about the segregation in the case brown v. board of education?

Scenario: the economy of country y has been in an economic downturn for the last several months. recently, businesses have invested in new technologies in order to produce the goods that consumers are demanding within the nation's own borders. the government has removed regulations to allow producers and consumers to have more financial freedom. as a result, consumer spending has increased and the economy has begun to improve. use the drop-down menus to complete the sentences. according to the information presented about country y, the classical economic concept of ( the invisible hand, consumer efficiency, government regulations) can be seen. the economic events of country y demonstrate the idea of laissez faire because the government (did, did not) intervene in economic events.

What percentage of roads in germany have no speed limit?

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.