An Act relative to privileged communications in defamation actions
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Create an account to record your position, submit testimony, or contact your legislator.
Progress
Where this bill stands in the legislative process.
- Introduced
- Passed Senate
- Passed House
- To Governor
- Became Law
Overview
This bill addresses the concept of ‘privileged communications’ in cases involving defamation lawsuits. It aims to clarify and potentially expand the types of communications that are protected from being used as evidence against someone in a defamation claim. Specifically, the bill seeks to establish clearer rules regarding when communications between individuals and certain organizations, like labor unions, are considered privileged.
Key provisions
- Defines ‘privileged communications’ in the context of defamation lawsuits.
- Expands the scope of communications potentially protected by privilege.
- Addresses communications between individuals and labor organizations.
- Clarifies the conditions under which privilege applies.
- Establishes guidelines for asserting privilege in court.
- Provides a framework for courts to determine the applicability of privilege.
- May impact how evidence is presented and used in defamation cases.
Who is affected
- Individuals involved in defamation lawsuits
- Defendants in defamation lawsuits
- Plaintiffs in defamation lawsuits
- Labor organizations
- Legal professionals
Notable changes
- Potentially broadens the definition of privileged communications.
- May offer greater protection for communications between individuals and labor unions.
Bill text
Read the latest version inline or switch to a previous version.
Text extraction is in progress. View the official source.
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
9 on record
Primary sponsor
Cosponsors
James B. Eldridge
Patricia D. Jehlen
Arguments
Reasons offered for and against this legislation.
Arguments in favor
No arguments in favor have been submitted.
Submit yoursArguments opposed
No arguments opposed have been submitted.
Submit yours