Review the following factual scenario. a man entered into a lease for an apartment with a landlord. the lease stated that the term was month-to-month. after one month, the man while taking a shower, noticed the drywall crumbling. under the drywall was a build up of harmful mold. rather than informing the landlord, the man simply sealed off the bathroom area. he continued to reside in the apartment two monthswithout paying rent. when pressed for the rent, the man said that he was withholding the rent because the apartment was uninhabitable. further, the man went to the city health and licensing department and complained about hazardous mold condition which consituted a code violations that the landlord failed to correct. after an inspection, the agency cited the landlord for the presence of mold, and ordered him to clear up the violation. after the inspection, the landlord brought an eviction action against the man and obtained a judgment against him for eviction. will the eviction order hold up under the stated facts? was the man right to withhold the rent? what arguments, if any, may the landlord raise to avoid paying the code violations? under the circumstances, what is the most likely ruling of the court?

Aplaintiff filed a civil action based on negligence against a defendant in federal district court, alleging that the defendant negligently ran a red light at an intersection and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle, causing the plaintiff's injuries. a week after the close of discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the defendant was negligent. with the motion, the plaintiff filed (i) his own sworn affidavit, which stated that the traffic signal was green as he entered the intersection, (ii) an affidavit of a witness who was driving the car behind him, which stated that the witness saw the entire incident and that the plaintiff's traffic signal was green as he approached and entered the intersection; and (iii) an affidavit of another witness, which stated that she saw the entire incident and that the defendant's signal had been red for several seconds before the defendant entered the intersection and was still red when the defendant entered the intersection. the defendant filed a response to the motion, noting that her answer denied negligence and further denied that her traffic signal was red, and argued that the issue of negligence and the issue of whether her traffic signal was red were in dispute, so those issues should be tried to a jury. how should the court rule on the plaintiff's motion?

What is generally true of the lower house in a state legislative branch ?

Dried paste made of boiled beef cow hooves eggs and vegtables what soup