The intersection of both procedural law and substantive law plays a crucial role in administering justice. Which of the following best describes an example that, for all its circumstances, predominantly concerns procedural law rather than substantive law? O Attorney Atwell thinks he has a slam dunk in his hit-and-run case, as Atwell's opponent, the Defendant Daphne, cannot prove the elements of her affirmative defense that Atwell's client was NOT the victim of a hit- and-run. The law in Illinois states that driving fifteen miles per hour over the speed limit is a third-degree felony. O California business laws require an employer to provide health and disability insurance to its employees. O Suleiman's car was towed by the city last night. In the morning. Suleiman petitioned the city to release his car because he was NOT afforded a hearing to present his case per state law. O The judge heard an objection from defense counsel, arguing that the case should NOT move forward because there was no obligation owed to the plaintiff. Question 16

The intersection of both procedural law and substantive law plays a crucial role in administering justice. Which of the following best describes an example that, for all its circumstances, predominantly concerns procedural law rather than substantive law? O Attorney Atwell thinks he has a slam dunk in his hit-and-run case, as Atwell's opponent, the Defendant Daphne, cannot prove the elements of her affirmative defense that Atwell's client was NOT the victim of a hit- and-run. The law in Illinois states that driving fifteen miles per hour over the speed limit is a third-degree felony. O California business laws require an employer to provide health and disability insurance to its employees. O Suleiman's car was towed by the city last night. In the morning. Suleiman petitioned the city to release his car because he was NOT afforded a hearing to present his case per state law. O The judge heard an objection from defense counsel, arguing that the case should NOT move forward because there was no obligation owed to the plaintiff. Question 16