The year in review

Article Abstract:

Legal practice in the year 1997 was notable for the offer of the tobacco industry to settle suits against it and its lobbying for legislation which would cost the industry $368.5 bil to change the way cigarettes are made and advertised. Michael C. Moore, the National Law Journal's lawyer of the year and Mississippi attorney general, was the first state attorney general to sue the industry to recover expenses to treat smokers suffering from smoking-related illnesses. The runners-up for lawyer-of-the-year were Joseph H. Hartzler, the prosecutor who secured the death sentence against Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and William P. Barr, GTE's general counsel, who helped shape the telecommunications industry.

Practice of law, 1997 AD

---

Conditions and circumstances of living on death row - violative of individual rights and fundamental freedoms?: divergent trends of judicial review in evaluating the "death row phenomenon."

Article Abstract:

The European Court of Human Rights in Soering v. United Kingdom decided that death row conditions constituted a violation of individual and human rights. In the United States, clear standards for judicial review of death row conditions under the Eighth Amendment have not been established. However, a death row inmate is unlikely to prevail in U.S. courts using an argument similar to that of the Soering case. The European Court examined the totality of circumstances, whereas the U.S. Supreme Court has focused on deprivation of a specific human need.

Cases, International aspects, Comparative analysis, Capital punishment, Civil rights, Judicial review, international, European Union

---

Physician peer review - is it really confidential?

Article Abstract:

The state statutes regarding the confidentiality of peer reviews for physicians play a vital role in allowing the profession to safely and effectively monitor itself. Plaintiff's lawyers often seek peer review records to find evidence that a hospital, as well as the doctor in question, is liable in a malpractice case. Most states interpret the peer review confidentiality statutes broadly, however, which is best for the profession and the patient.

Laws, regulations and rules, Confidential communications, Peer review, Professional standards review organizations (Medicine), Physician-patient privilege, states

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Fertility and coercion. The Defense of Marriage Act and the overextension of congressional authority
• Abstracts: Rethinking the 1916 Antidumping Act. Protection of the "innocent" initial transferee of an avoidable transfer: an application of the plain meaning rule requiring use of judicial discretion
• Abstracts: Candidate conservation agreements under the Endangered Species Act: prospects and perils of an administrative experiment
• Abstracts: Emissions trading for global warming. RoHS WEEE - The new European Directives: Do they work and why (or why not)? Current application and development in EU and USA
• Abstracts: Arbitration and human rights. Arbitration-friendliness: promises of principle and realities of practice

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.