Heidi has brought a civil lawsuit against Linda. Linda's lawyer tells her precedent supports her defense. The lawyer's statement means Heidi's lawsuit is frivolous. , Not Selected does not guarantee that Linda will win the case. , Not Selected Incorrect means Linda will win the case. means Heidi's lawsuit is based on statutory law.

The lawyer's statement means Heidi's lawsuit is frivolous.

Explanation:

Precedents in the courts of law are previously established cases whose judgements can be referenced in successive case. In the case above, Linda is the defendant because the burden of proof lies on her. She needs to put up a defense to contest the accuracy of her lawsuit.

When the lawyer tells her that precedent supports her defense, it means that previously established cases on that matter support Linda's case. Therefore, Heidi's lawsuit against Linda was frivolous and lacked merit. Linda has a high chance of winning the case.

answer:

so they didn't get shot,exploded, arrested, or killed for that matter. why else? its a military base why should you want to step foot on a land-mined field? and why would you want to get shot or exploded? people may seem dumb but in reality there not, they actually thought this on trough.

explanation:

donald trump shouldn’t be impeached. if the alleged action would be impeachable if true, so must be the allegation if false. anything else would give the president the power to distort democracy by calling his opponents criminals without ever having to prove it .for more than a few reasons, more and more americans are beginning to support the impeachment of donald trump or at the very least believe he will be impeached eventually. short of trump trying to establish himself as king, i think impeachment is a very bad idea. i cant believe you democrats' would throw shade on him for reasons that you dont even have proof of. ugh. liberals.