Desire to spread religious feelings

An artist entered into a written agreement to sell a patron a partially finished painting once it was complete. the patron later learned that the artist planned to sell the painting to a third party who offered to pay the artist more than the contract price. the patron filed suit to compel the artist to sell the painting to her in accord with the terms of their agreement, while the artist denied that the painting the artist planned to sell to the third party was the subject of the agreement with the patron. at trial, the patron did not introduce the written agreement or explain its absence. rather, the patron sought to testify that, when she signed the agreement, the artist had pointed to the painting in question and stated that it was the patron’s painting. the artist’s attorney objected to the testimony that the artist identified the painting as belonging to the patron. how should the court rule? asustain the objection, because the artist’s statement was hearsay. bsustain the objection, because the patron failed to produce the written agreement or explain its absence. coverrule the objection, because the statement is not hearsay. doverrule the objection, because the statement was relevant.

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 the difference between the idea of stare decisis and something being constitutional?