The fourth answer is a summary of the case 23 Wis. J.L. Gender & Soc'y 41. Keywords: statutes, laws Answer to question 1: Drunk driving is a serious civil offence recognized across the United States of America. The two statutes that I wish to discuss with regard to this topic are Mich. Comp. Laws sec. 257.625 and V C Section 23152. (Michigan laws) According to the statute of Michigan, a person does not have the right to operate a vehicle on either a highway or any place of public while under the influence of alcohol. In such a case, as he is intoxicated, it might lead to injury for both the vehicle and others, not to forget the individual himself. If the person who operates a vehicle after being intoxicated causes the death of a person, he will be charged of a felony or crime. The ‘per se’ blood alcohol level for a person driving in the state of Michigan has to be .08 and his zero tolerance level should not exceed .02. If caught, the person will be implied with the consent of law. If the offence has been committed for the first time, the defendant’s license may be suspended for a period not exceeding 6 months, however, consequently, the suspension period can go up to more than one year as well. After the second time an offense is created, the person will have to do time in jail and undergo education pertaining to alcohol usage. According to the California statute that follows drunk driving, more or less, the law applied is the same as well. It states that it is against the law for an individual to drive or operate a vehicle if he or she is under the influence of any drugs or alcohol. The ‘per se’ blood alcohol level for this statute applied is also .08 and if there is more than that alcohol found in the blood, the person is committing an offense. (California laws) However, the zero tolerance level in California is .01 and the license of the person is only suspended for a period not exceeding for months after the first time that he commits the offense. After the second and third offenses however, the license may be taken away for 2-4 years and unlike the laws applied in Michigan, the vehicle of the person in California may be confiscated after the third time the individual commits the offense of drunk driving. Answer to question 2: Bluebook citation: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, 1973 U.S (1973) This case was dissented by: DA's Office v. Osborne, 129 S. Ct. 2308, 174 L. Ed. 2d 38, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4536, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 945 (U.S. 2009) (129) Earlier case: Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11306 (N.D. Tex. 1970) Later overruled by: Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528, 105 S. Ct. 1005, 83 L. Ed. 2d 1016, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 48, 53 U.S.L.W. 4135, 36 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P34995, 102 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34633, 27 Wage , &, Hour Cas. (BNA) 65 (1985) Answers for question 3: 566 A.2d 227 Parallel Citation: Ruetgers-Nease Chemical Co. v. Firemen's Ins. of Newark, 236 N.J. Super. 473, 566 A.2d 227, 1989 N.J. Super. LEXIS 385 (App.Div. 1989) (192) No cases give a positive treatment of this case. In fact, only two cases have been cited after it that criticize or cite a dissenting opinion for the same. They are 1. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 192 Misc. 2d 468, 746 N.Y.S.2d 776, 2002 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1074 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2002) 2. GE v. California Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 997 S.W.2d 923, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 6732, 99:37 Tex.