Describe the legal action against McSween and the violence that followed. Answer quick

The legal action against McSween and the violence that followed was a result of the takeover of the Tunstall-McSweeny store and the killing of John Tunstall.

Explanation:

The legal action against McSween and the violence that followed was a result of the takeover of the Tunstall-McSweeny store and the killing of John Tunstall. During this time, Tunstall and McSween establish their companies in Lincoln county down the street to challenge the Dolan establishment which was dominating the area.

However, the Dolan store also known as House felt their establishment was illegal and againt thier business and he challenge them in court in a civil case. Dolan investment won the judgment to take over Tunstall-McSweeny stall which he did with the help sheriff posse and the court's writ to confiscate their properties. Tunstall was shot by the sheriff during a protest against the takeover of his ranch. In retaliation on Tunstall's death, Billy and Mcsweeny shot and killed the sheriff Brady and two of his deputies in an ambushed on Lincoln street.

Moreover, this fight continues which also lead to the death of Mcsweeny in 1878

Conflict over market control.

Explanation:

The conflict lasted from 1878 to 1881. The reason is control and dominance by trade. The older economic faction was led by James Dolan, while on the side of competitors was Englishman John Tunstall and his associate Alexander McSween. They started a business that was in direct competition with Dolan. Initially, both factions brought together a large number of economic experts and lawyers. In all ways, legal action sought to challenge counterparty trading. When these actions failed, a bloody showdown ensued. Both sides brought together several people who were prone to crime. The conflict led to extermination, and many people lost their lives in it.

the great awakening and enlightenment drew together all british subjects with new experiences and educational opportunities for both of them

president carter called the victims of kidnapping "victims of terrorism and anarchy" and added that the united states was not going to give in to blackmail. in the united states, they see hostage-taking as an outrage on the part of the islamist movement that violated the principle of international law on the immunity and inviolability of diplomats and their embassies.

carter refused to yield to the demands, khomeini used the situation to consolidate his power and nullify the challenges of the moderate wing of his government, headed by its president. the euphoria over the humiliation of the most powerful nation distracted the iranian people from the economic difficulties of their country. carter, in april 1980, broke diplomatic relations with iran and imposed a trade embargo, except medicine and food. iranian funds in the us they were frozen and accounted for to compensate the hostages when they were released and to pay the demands of us companies against iran.