FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W275728422> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W275728422 startingPage "111" @default.
• W275728422 abstract "Writing in the October newsletter of the Products Liability Committee, Stephen E. Scheve and Robert E. Cowan of the Houston office of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, stress the importance of choosing the right choice of law rules: You represent a Texas prescription drug manufacturer embroiled in an Illinois lawsuit. Your client is alleged to have manufactured and sold a dangerously defective product. Over your objections of work product privilege, the plaintiff's counsel in Chicago requests access to your attorney-- generated computer database to make it easier to sort through company documents. She also requests the production of patient medical files from a clinical study conducted in connection with the product, a study she asserts was fraudulently performed. The application of Texas or Illinois privilege rules may produce vastly different results. To which do you turn to protect your client's interests? Competing tests Defense practitioners must turn to choice of law rules to evaluate the substantive claims in cases such as that described above. Depending on the jurisdiction, one of the competing tests of significant relationship, lex loci delicti or government-interest analysis will help the court settle conflicts of law issues, and they often profoundly affect the lawsuit's ultimate outcome. The is to look to the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the litigation-that is, the state with the greatest interest in protecting its citizens. See, e.g., Reichhold Chemicals Inc. v,. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 750 A.2d 1051, 1053 (Conn. 2000) (adopting the most significant relationship test consistent with the in many jurisdictions); Roxas v. Marcos, 969 P.2d 1209, 1235 n.16 (Haw. 1998) (favoring the modern trend and looking to the state with the most significant relationship to the parties and subject matter). Too often, however, the attention of the court is not drawn to the applicability of choice of law principles to claims of privilege. Counsel may look to the law of a foreign state in evaluating the substantive issues of a case, such as the existence of a duty, breach of duty, causation and damages, but be content with applying the law of the forum on all discovery issues. Rote application of the forum's privilege rules could harm your client's interests and unnecessarily cripple your case. Understand the principles A Texas Supreme Court case reinforces the need to understand choice of law principles as they apply to claims of privilege. In Ford Motor Co. v. Leggat, 904 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. 1995), the Texas Supreme Court considered a petition for writ of mandamus in which Ford complained of having to produce in discovery certain documents and information regarding its Bronco II vehicles. The plaintiffs sued Ford for wrongful death after the decedent's Bronco II flipped and rolled over while cruising down an interstate highway. During discovery, the plaintiffs sought production of a 1982 report by Ford's general counsel to the company's policy and strategy committee, as well as technical data prepared by Ford engineers at the request of Ford's outside counsel for use by a consultant retained by that counsel. After a hearing, the trial court ordered Ford to produce the requested documents over Ford's claims of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. On appeal, Ford urged the Texas Supreme Court to apply Michigan privilege law because, it argued, Michigan was the state with the most significant relationship to the communications at issue. The significance of the court's choice between Texas and Michigan privilege rules centered on the fact that Texas at that time adhered to the control group test for determining when the attorney-client privilege attaches to communications between counsel and a company's employees, while Michigan appeared to follow the subject matter or scope of employment test. …" @default.
• W275728422 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W275728422 creator A5033045320 @default.
• W275728422 creator A5056482744 @default.
• W275728422 date "2002-01-01" @default.
• W275728422 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W275728422 title "Choice of Law and the Claim of Privilege" @default.
• W275728422 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W275728422 type Work @default.
• W275728422 sameAs 275728422 @default.
• W275728422 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W275728422 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W275728422 hasAuthorship W275728422A5033045320 @default.
• W275728422 hasAuthorship W275728422A5056482744 @default.
• W275728422 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W275728422 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W275728422 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W275728422 hasConcept C2524010 @default.
• W275728422 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W275728422 hasConcept C2777134139 @default.
• W275728422 hasConcept C2777449729 @default.
• W275728422 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W275728422 hasConcept C2779785115 @default.
• W275728422 hasConcept C2779967654 @default.
• W275728422 hasConcept C2780138299 @default.
• W275728422 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W275728422 hasConcept C90673727 @default.
• W275728422 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W275728422 hasConceptScore W275728422C144133560 @default.
• W275728422 hasConceptScore W275728422C17744445 @default.
• W275728422 hasConceptScore W275728422C199539241 @default.
• W275728422 hasConceptScore W275728422C2524010 @default.
• W275728422 hasConceptScore W275728422C2776949292 @default.
• W275728422 hasConceptScore W275728422C2777134139 @default.
• W275728422 hasConceptScore W275728422C2777449729 @default.
• W275728422 hasConceptScore W275728422C2777834853 @default.
• W275728422 hasConceptScore W275728422C2779785115 @default.
• W275728422 hasConceptScore W275728422C2779967654 @default.
• W275728422 hasConceptScore W275728422C2780138299 @default.
• W275728422 hasConceptScore W275728422C33923547 @default.
• W275728422 hasConceptScore W275728422C90673727 @default.
• W275728422 hasConceptScore W275728422C97460637 @default.
• W275728422 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W275728422 hasLocation W2757284221 @default.
• W275728422 hasOpenAccess W275728422 @default.
• W275728422 hasPrimaryLocation W2757284221 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W1482586495 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W1524308985 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W1527948059 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W1558194756 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W1589808793 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W218702994 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W2190571489 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W220256473 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W239281194 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W255025242 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W2594206242 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W2969899111 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W299136178 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W305999546 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W308234495 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W3125030736 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W3205772011 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W339194152 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W394798881 @default.
• W275728422 hasRelatedWork W97709631 @default.
• W275728422 hasVolume "69" @default.
• W275728422 isParatext "false" @default.
• W275728422 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W275728422 magId "275728422" @default.
• W275728422 workType "article" @default.