If any state tribunal decides a federal question and the litigant has no further remedy within the state court system, from which of the following remedies could the litigant possibly benefit?
a.
a hearing by a us district court
b.
a hearing by a federal court of appeals
c.
a hearing by the us supreme court
d.
a congressional vote

  C.  A hearing by the US Supreme Court.

Explanation:

  The state court system has jurisdiction over disputes with connection to a U.S. State. These courts handle the vast majority of civil and criminal cases of the United States.

  The US Supreme Court can but is not required to review the final decisions of state courts. After having exhausted all the tools available in the State. If the Court believes that the case involves an important question of federal law can accept it.

  I hope this answer helps you.

Option B, a hearing by a federal court of appeal, is the right answer.

Explanation:

In the federal court system of the United States, the Courts of Appeals is also known as the circuit courts. In the United States, such courts are the appellate courts. In a situation when any state tribunal determines a general question and the prosecution has no further remedy within the state court arrangement, he can get remedy from the court of appeals. The decision of the court of appeals will be the final unless it conveys the case back to the trial court for further proceedings, or the defendants urge the Supreme Court of the United States to review the case.

question - in 1827, john walker, a druggist in a small english town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. the druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. it is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. although walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. it could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. in a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. the match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. it would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. this was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar. according the paragraph what was the benefit of the new phosphorus match? it burst into flame when rubbed on sandpaper. it was made by mixing chemicals. it could be ignited on any dry surface. it threw fire in all directions.

answer - matches required natural chemicals