Jailed researcher claims shield

Article Abstract:

Rik Scarce, a doctoral student in sociology at Washington State University, has gone to jail rather than answer a grand jury's questions about the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), an environmental group he is researching for his dissertation. The grand jury was investigating the ALF in connection with a sabotage attempt at the university's laboratories. Scarce and his attorneys claim researchers merit the same First Amendment shield as journalists, but many experts disagree.

Laws, regulations and rules, Freedom of speech, Graduate students, Journalistic privilege

---

'Arb' testimony not privileged; malpractice case ruling

Article Abstract:

A California appellate court has stated in Moore v Conliffe that, since private arbitration is not a judicial proceeding, testimony from such a forum is not confidential. This was a medical malpractice case in which the defendant's expert had allegedly lied during the arbitration phase. When the plaintiff's lawyer sued, the doctor claimed his arbitration testimony was confidential. The appeals court disagreed and remanded the case for trial.

Cases, Commercial arbitration

---

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Will ruling impact Borland's fall trial? Church, airlines balk at benefits law; San Francisco's domestic partners law causes big stir
• Abstracts: Lobbying lawyers; Clinton, Perot spur debate on disclosure requirements. Bill of Rights enters its third century; birthday observed with debate on constitutionality of mind control, birth ban
• Abstracts: Outcomes without trials: Supreme Court decisions add to rules on out-of-court case resolutions. Holding the center; Sandra O'Connor evolves into major force on Supreme Court
• Abstracts: Hiring splits Harvard Law; parody of murdered professor's article increases rancor. Hurricane claims mediated; program provides fast payments for Andrew's victims, but some prefer the courts
• Abstracts: 'Reasonable woman' test catches on. 'Reasonable woman' test may perpetuate sex bias. After 'O'Connor v. Coin Caterers,' the question remains: When does replacing an employee with a younger employee become actionable age discrimination?

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