What would be the best title of list of government officers

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?

Identify the constitutional principle that is common in both this excerpt and federalist no. 51. based on the constitutional principle identified in part (a), explain how the perspective in this excerpt compares with the perspective in federalist no. 51. explain how the constitutional principle identified in part (a) is reflected in the constitution, including two examples to explain how it affects the u. s. political system

Supreme court. jim, who is a bit eccentric, says that he is fed up with the way a certain employer in his town treats employees and that he is going to sue that employer in an effort to improve matters. jim also says that he is going to start his case at the appellate court level, skipping over all those "lesser" judges. jim says that those justices will surely hear him out and that he will also seek a jury. although he is not a lawyer, jim believes that the offenses of the employer are so severe that the justices will appreciate his attempt to make things better for the employees involved. will jim get a jury at the appellate court level?