Test

The Nettle Superior Court have ruled in the past in 1990. That in order to qualify for the danger of Life clause in that subsection their life would actually have to be in danger of immediate death or proof that they are on the verge of death within the next 48 months or their quality of life is on the state of decline. So a refugee crisis does not count for that. Plus, it's extremely obvious in the wording of the clause that this is what it means. The case is known as Beauchêne .V. Nettle (1990), and the participants where Luna, Georgia and Alaina Beauchêne and the Provincial Government of Nettle. They both argued that Luna's and Georgia's younger sister (Alaina) was denied care from the Province of Nettle due to her refuge status in May 1984. At the time, only Luna and Georgia were Falloan citizens and Alaina was not. In May 1984, Alaina got an 16,200 Falla medical bill for surgery which if she was an citizen, it would have been covered. They argued that she qualifies for the danger in Section 22 (1.2). They argued that Section 7 should apply here. They won in Nettle's lower courts but lost in Nettle's Superior Court. The Province appealed it to the Superior Court. The Nettle Court of Appeal heard their case and upheld Nettle's Superior Court decision. Then they appealed to the Supreme Court of Falloa, but the SCF dismissed it. The Supreme Court of Falloa is famous for staying quiet when they dismiss cases and the official reason is to protect neutrality of the judiciary. They always do that when dismissing cases but give an statement why they ruled on a case if opened by the SCF.