Which of the following is a way to challenge or attack a legal position or argument based on a court opinion?

Group of answer choices

The opinion being relied on is mandatory precedent.

The opinion being relied on allows for other possible solutions.

There are equally relevant cases that do not support the position adopted in the case being relied on.

The court opinion being relied on no longer represents sound public policy.

Answers a and d above

Answers a, b, and c above

Answers b, c, and d above

Which of the following is a way to challenge or attack a legal position or argument based on a court opinion?

Group of answer choices

The statute interpreted in the case does not function differently from the statute in the client's case.

The statute interpreted in the case has been adopted in the jurisdiction.

The statute interpreted in the case does not conflict with a legislative act.

All of the above

Answers a and b above

None of the above

Which of the following is a way to challenge or attack a legal position or argument based on a court opinion?

Group of answer choices

The opinion is not on point because of key fact differences.

Reliance on the opinion is misplaced because the principle applied does not apply to the case at hand.

The court opinion is not subject to a different interpretation.

The court opinion is universally followed.

All of the above

Answers a and b above

Answers a, b, and d above