Revenge. Jane, a first$-$year law student, while walking to school in inclement weather, accidentally slipped on ice knocking down Greg, another first$-$year law student, breaking his glasses. He was very angry with Jane and let the air out of one of her car tires. Greg also decided to sue Jane for negligence, claiming as damages $$300$ for his broken glasses. He decided that he already knew all about the law and did not need a lawyer. Greg sued Jane in state court. Jane, in the same lawsuit, brought an action against Greg for letting the air out of her tire. At trial in state court, Jane told the judge that a friend, Susie, told her that she saw Greg let the air out of Jane's tire. The judge disallowed Jane's testimony on that issue. Susie, however, who was in the courtroom also came and testified to that effect. The state court judge ruled in favor of Jane. Greg said that he was not giving up and that he would seek double damages on appeal in federal court. Jane and Greg live in different states when not attending school. After trial, Jane reported Greg's actions in letting the air out of her tire to the police who said that they would proceed with a criminal action against Greg. Jane's action against Greg for the tire is called $a(n)$

counterclaim

cross$-$claim

third party claim

discovery claim

Last saved $8$:$54$:$05$ PM