961:. Under the bill, the scope of protection for reporters would vary according to whether it was a civil case, an ordinary criminal case or a national security case. The greatest protection would be given to civil cases, in which litigants seeking to force reporters to testify or trying to obtain their calling information would be required to show why their need for the information outweighed the public's interest in unfettered news gathering. Ordinary criminal cases would work in a similar fashion, except the burden would be on the reporter seeking to quash the subpoena to show by a "clear and convincing" standard that the public interest in the free flow of information should prevail over the needs of law enforcement. Cases involving the disclosure of classified information would be more heavily tilted toward the government. Judges could not quash a subpoena through a balancing test if prosecutors presented facts showing that the information sought might help prevent a terrorist attack or other acts likely to harm national security. The legislation would create a presumption that when the government is seeking calling records from a telephone carrier, the news organization would be notified ahead of time, allowing it to fight the subpoena in court. But the bill would also allow the government to seek a 45- to 90-day delay in notification if a court determines that such notice would threaten the integrity of the investigation. The legislation would also include an exception where journalists could be subpoenaed if it means national security is at risk.
894:. In that case, a New Jersey newspaper published an article containing defamatory statements about the plaintiff. The article attributed the statements to a source who was identified by name in the article; the source later denied making the defamatory statements. The plaintiff filed a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper, the reporter and the alleged source of the defamatory statements. When the plaintiff sought to question the newspaper reporter about the article, the reporter and his newspaper refused, claiming protection under New Jersey's shield law. It was discovered, however, that the reporter had already given a statement under oath concerning the article—and, most important, the alleged source of the statement and exactly what that source said—to a local county prosecutor's office. The reporter also talked about his source and what the source said with a local municipal attorney. The
150:
forced to reveal his or her source". Thus, a shield law provides a privilege to a reporter pursuant to which the reporter cannot be forced by a subpoena or other court order to testify about information contained in a news story and/or the source of that information. Several shield laws additionally provide protection for the reporter even if the source or information is revealed during the dissemination of the news story, that is whether or not the source or information is confidential. Depending on the jurisdiction, the privilege may be total or qualified, and it may also apply to other persons involved in the news-gathering and dissemination process as well, such as an editor or a publisher. However, shield laws do not ensure absolute protection.
178:. In creating the article, he came in contact with two local citizens who had created and used the drug. Because their activity was illegal, Branzburg promised the two individuals that he would not reveal their identities. After the article was published, Branzburg was subpoenaed by a local grand jury and ordered to reveal the identity of his sources. Branzburg refused and cited the provisions for freedom of the press from the First Amendment of the Constitution, in his defense.
861:
from the government, then they are getting special journalistic benefits from the government instead of acting in complete independence. Some opponents also argue that journalists are often forced to testify by federal courts only in cases where a federal shield law likely would not protect them anyway. Finally, the federal government may not have constitutional right to enforce a shield law on state courts.
194:, the Court held that a reporter's right to protect his sources from disclosure could be overcome by a party who, by a preponderance of the evidence, demonstrated that he has made an effort to obtain the information elsewhere, that the only access to the information sought is through the journalist and his or her source, and that the information sought is crucial to the case. 612 F.2d 708 (3rd Cir. 1979).
804:
25:
865:
passed the Senate. A primary objection to recent efforts to pass a federal shield law has been concern about leaks of classified information, particularly given the modern potential of such leaks to be published globally on the
Internet by non-traditional recipients, such as WikiLeaks, who might claim to be "journalists" under an unqualified shield law.
883:
a story with confidential sources places the press in a very precarious situation. The current shield laws in some states give the press somewhat of an upper hand. However, since federal law does not recognize reportorial privilege in most cases, it is understandable how the press might feel muzzled.
1019:
mailed medication to patients throughout the US with providers licensed in the five states with telemedicine provisions, with no need to ship from other countries as had been necessary before. It was expected that legal battles would follow as the shield laws were tested in court. Patients themselves
907:
court stated: "The privilege holder is not permitted to step from behind the shield as he pleases, sallying forth one moment to make a disclosure to one person and then to seek the shield's protection from having to repeat the same disclosure to another person. A reporter cannot play peek-a-boo with
860:
Opponents argue that shield laws afford extra privileges to journalists and that no citizen should be able to ignore a court ordered subpoena. Opponents also cite problems with defining who is considered a journalist or news gatherer and who is not, and note that if journalists get special protection
1341:
In "Why
Journalists Are Not above the Law," Gabriel Schoenfeld talks about the Constitutional freedom of the press. She believes that journalists should not be exempt from national security laws. Schoenfeld feels that journalists should not be able to report on national security issues. Although the
882:
decisions could allow for the possibility of a journalist being subpoenaed by a court to disclose the name of a source, and being sued by a source under promissory estoppel laws for that disclosure. The current laws of the land, and the gray areas of forecasting potential consequences of publishing
856:
Proponents of shield laws argue that they ensure that news gatherers may do their jobs to their fullest ability and that they help avoid a dichotomy between state laws and journalistic ethics, but the differences between states' laws has raised questions regarding which laws apply where in regard to
916:
is highly significant because it marks the first time that a reporter has ever been found to have waived the privilege under New Jersey's current shield law, and because it explores the issue of what is or is not a "newsgathering activity," and, thus, what activities are subject to protection under
206:
offer some form of protections Forty states (plus D.C.) have passed shield laws. These laws vary from state to state. Some protections apply to civil but not to criminal proceedings. Other laws protect journalists from revealing confidential sources, but not other information. Many states have also
185:
This ruling was limited in nature, did not set a clear federal precedent regarding journalistic privileges from revealing confidential information, and thus has been interpreted and cited differently by courts over the years. The Third
Circuit Court of Appeals, for instance, has gleaned a qualified
930:
found that to qualify as a reporter, a standard of professionalism must be met, including but not limited to being associated with a traditional news print or television media outlet or obtaining a journalism degree. A subsequent opinion in the same case clarified that these were examples and not
864:
Many journalists, however, are subpoenaed to testify in criminal and civil cases for coverage of a variety of matters that do not involve questions of national security. In recent years, there have been bills for federal shield laws in the United States
Congress; however, none of these bills have
181:
The
Supreme Court decided in a five to four decision that the press did not have a Constitutional right of protection from revealing confidential information in court. The court acknowledged, however, that the government must "convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought
149:
A shield law is a law that gives reporters protection against being forced to disclose confidential information or sources in state court. There is no federal shield law and state shield laws vary in scope. In general, however, a shield law aims to provide the protection of: "a reporter cannot be
1014:
who treated patients in US states that prohibited abortion. Following publication of the paper, several states passed shield laws for medical practitioners. As of July 2023 fifteen states had such shield laws, and five had telemedicine provisions, specifically protecting a provider who
898:
court unanimously held that, while New Jersey has arguably the most protective shield law in the United States, a reporter waives the privilege when he talks about his sources and information outside of the newsgathering process, as did the reporter in
182:
and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest." While this ruling did not set a precedent for journalistic rights in court, it did define a more stringent set of requirements for when a journalist could be subpoenaed in court.
1266:
933:
931:
requirements; bloggers could qualify, and the denial of media status in the Cox case appears to have been largely motivated by the defendant reportedly offering to remove accusations for a substantial fee. Conversely, in
874:(1991). The Supreme Court upheld that a source may have a right to confidentiality if an agreement was made with the reporter. Unfortunately, the bigger issue of source disclosure gets even more confusing, since the
941:
adopted a much broader definition of media that applies to blogs and website curators, reiterating that "freedom of the press is a fundamental personal right which is not confined to newspapers and periodicals."
136:
More generally the term "shield law" is applied to laws protecting people in one state from prosecution by another state for providing services illegal there, specifically for providing medications causing
207:
established court precedents which provide protection to journalists, usually based on constitutional arguments. Only
Wyoming lacks both legislation and judicial precedent to protect reporter's privilege.
129:. This privilege involves the right of news reporters to refuse to testify as to the information and/or sources of information obtained during the news gathering and dissemination process. Currently, the
920:
Currently, courts are struggling to define the standards for when shield laws should apply to non-traditional media outlets, particularly in the context of blogs and
Internet publishing. In
927:
868:
Sometimes, the press is not even immune from its sources, such as when the source wishes to remain anonymous and the journalist wishes to disclose it. Such was the case in
821:
42:
158:
The issue of whether or not journalists can be subpoenaed and forced to reveal confidential information arose in 1972 with the United States
Supreme Court case
133:
federal government has not enacted any national shield laws, but most of the 50 states do have shield laws or other protections for reporters in place.
1317:
1247:
999:
1180:
Jones, RonNell
Andersen. "Avalanche or Undue Alarm? An Empirical Study of Subpoenas Received by the News Media", 93 MINN. L. REV. 585, 639–40 (2008).
1495:
1189:
Reiss, W. Cory. "Crime That Plays: Shaping a
Reporter's Shield to Cover National Security in an Insecure World", 44 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 641 (2009).
89:
1414:
61:
1510:
68:
922:
1500:
1467:
843:
108:
75:
1286:
1379:
857:
national reporting. Proponents argue that a federal shield law should exist to eliminate contradictions between state laws.
825:
57:
46:
1505:
1111:
1029:
950:
1140:
Rozell, Mark J., and Jeremy D. Mayer. 2008. Media Power Media Politics. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. pg 330.
1243:
1107:
938:
1199:
1123:
978:
814:
35:
870:
887:
1103:
82:
1046:
126:
1069:
1015:
prescribed and mailed abortion pills to a patient in a state where abortion was banned. From 18 June 2023
1020:
were not protected by the shield laws, and remained subject to prosecution for self-managing abortions.
990:
There is also a question about whether or not journalists should be exempt from national security laws.
273:
1405:
We're All Journalists Now: The Transformation of the Press and Reshaping of the Law in the Internet Age
1353:
1272:
969:
In recent years, a larger effort by journalists to press for federal shield laws formed following the
1041:
203:
171:
1006:
166:
202:
States differ on their approach to protecting reporter's privilege. As of 2018, 49 states and the
1342:
shield law is a form of protection, reporters are not covered when it comes to national security.
983:
160:
1410:
1051:
987:, was jailed for 85 days in 2005 for refusing to disclose her source in the government probe.
1480:
1457:
1431:
1155:
1057:
954:
958:
1489:
1403:
974:
130:
1294:
1066:: Fox News reporter subpoenaed to reveal sources in 2013 despite Colorado shield law
912:
court ordered that the reporter must submit to the plaintiff's deposition request.
1088:
1035:
970:
1475:
1063:
946:
803:
24:
1016:
1010:
about ways in which shield laws could protect medical practitioners providing
1318:"Criticized on Seizure of Records, White House Pushes News Media Shield Law"
1462:
1380:"Group using 'shield laws' to provide abortion care in states that ban it"
1011:
138:
1267:
The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc.
934:
The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc.
828: in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
175:
1290:
1432:"State-by-State Guide to the Reporter's Privilege for Student Media"
1200:"Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis"
1156:"State-by-State Guide to the Reporter's Privilege for Student Media"
1127:
886:
The shield law privilege may also be waived by a reporter, as the
1352:
Cohen, David S.; Donley, Greer; Rebouché, Rachel (January 2023).
797:
18:
212:
Current protections for reporter's privilege in each state.
977:
were asked who their sources were. One of the reporters,
928:
United States District Court for the District of Oregon
949:
was pushing for a federal media shield law named the
49:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
1402:
973:, in which reporters who released the name of
8:
209:
1000:Abortion shield laws in the United States
844:Learn how and when to remove this message
109:Learn how and when to remove this message
1463:Legal Liability Issues for Online Speech
1081:
1373:
1371:
1287:"Free Flow of Information Act of 2009"
1150:
1148:
1146:
1004:In 2023 a paper was published in the
994:Shield laws for medical practitioners
7:
1285:Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham.
826:adding citations to reliable sources
174:and wrote an article about the drug
164:. Paul Branzburg was a reporter for
47:adding citations to reliable sources
186:First Amendment privilege from the
125:is legislation designed to protect
1094:. Washington, DC: CQ, 2009. Print.
923:Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox
58:"Shield laws in the United States"
14:
1438:. Student Press Law Center. 2010
1316:Savage, Charlie (15 July 2013).
1162:. Student Press Law Center. 2010
1092:Mass Media and American Politics
802:
23:
1496:Journalism in the United States
1378:Grant, Rebecca (23 July 2023).
1354:"THE NEW ABORTION BATTLEGROUND"
813:needs additional citations for
34:needs additional citations for
16:Legal protections for reporters
890:recently found in the case of
1:
1112:Cornell University Law School
1030:Free Flow of Information Act
951:Free Flow of Information Act
1244:New Jersey General Assembly
1124:"Riley v. Chester - AltLaw"
1108:Legal Information Institute
939:New Hampshire Supreme Court
908:the privilege." Thus, the
224:Court-recognized privilege
1527:
1511:United States evidence law
997:
953:authored by U.S. Senators
871:Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.
1501:Privileged communication
1409:. New York: Free Press.
1223:In re Michael G. Venezia
892:In re Michael G. Venezia
888:New Jersey Supreme Court
192:Riley v. City of Chester
1458:Reporter's Shield Laws
1252:Statutes of New Jersey
1481:Virginia's shield law
1471:, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)
998:Further information:
1506:Sources (journalism)
1476:WV shield law passed
1401:Gant, Scott (2007).
1273:160 N.H. 227
1248:"N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-21"
1104:"Branzburg v. Hayes"
1047:Reporter's privilege
1042:Privilege (evidence)
822:improve this article
308:District of Columbia
204:District of Columbia
172:Louisville, Kentucky
127:reporters' privilege
43:improve this article
1358:Columbia Law Review
1007:Columbia Law Review
214:
167:The Courier-Journal
1469:BRANZBURG v. HAYES
1322:The New York Times
1297:on 6 December 2013
984:The New York Times
210:
161:Branzburg v. Hayes
1416:978-0-7432-9926-8
1052:Source protection
945:In July 2013 the
854:
853:
846:
791:
790:
119:
118:
111:
93:
1518:
1447:
1445:
1443:
1420:
1408:
1388:
1387:
1375:
1366:
1365:
1349:
1343:
1339:
1333:
1332:
1330:
1328:
1313:
1307:
1306:
1304:
1302:
1293:. Archived from
1282:
1276:
1270:
1262:
1256:
1255:
1240:
1234:
1220:
1214:
1213:
1211:
1210:
1196:
1190:
1187:
1181:
1178:
1172:
1171:
1169:
1167:
1152:
1141:
1138:
1132:
1131:
1126:. Archived from
1120:
1114:
1101:
1095:
1089:Graber, Doris A.
1086:
1058:State v. Rinaldo
849:
842:
838:
835:
829:
806:
798:
215:
213:
114:
107:
103:
100:
94:
92:
51:
27:
19:
1526:
1525:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1486:
1485:
1454:
1441:
1439:
1430:
1427:
1425:Further reading
1417:
1400:
1397:
1392:
1391:
1377:
1376:
1369:
1351:
1350:
1346:
1340:
1336:
1326:
1324:
1315:
1314:
1310:
1300:
1298:
1284:
1283:
1279:
1264:
1263:
1259:
1242:
1241:
1237:
1221:
1217:
1208:
1206:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1188:
1184:
1179:
1175:
1165:
1163:
1154:
1153:
1144:
1139:
1135:
1122:
1121:
1117:
1102:
1098:
1087:
1083:
1078:
1026:
1002:
996:
967:
955:Charles Schumer
850:
839:
833:
830:
819:
807:
796:
211:
200:
156:
147:
115:
104:
98:
95:
52:
50:
40:
28:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1524:
1522:
1514:
1513:
1508:
1503:
1498:
1488:
1487:
1484:
1483:
1478:
1473:
1465:
1460:
1453:
1452:External links
1450:
1449:
1448:
1426:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1415:
1396:
1393:
1390:
1389:
1367:
1344:
1334:
1308:
1277:
1257:
1235:
1215:
1191:
1182:
1173:
1142:
1133:
1130:on 2008-10-08.
1115:
1096:
1080:
1079:
1077:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1067:
1061:
1054:
1049:
1044:
1039:
1032:
1025:
1022:
995:
992:
966:
965:Related issues
963:
959:Lindsey Graham
852:
851:
810:
808:
801:
795:
794:Current issues
792:
789:
788:
785:
782:
778:
777:
774:
771:
767:
766:
763:
760:
756:
755:
752:
749:
745:
744:
741:
738:
734:
733:
730:
727:
723:
722:
719:
716:
712:
711:
708:
705:
701:
700:
697:
694:
690:
689:
686:
683:
679:
678:
675:
672:
671:South Carolina
668:
667:
664:
661:
657:
656:
653:
650:
646:
645:
642:
639:
635:
634:
631:
628:
624:
623:
620:
617:
613:
612:
609:
606:
602:
601:
598:
595:
594:North Carolina
591:
590:
587:
584:
580:
579:
576:
573:
569:
568:
565:
562:
558:
557:
554:
551:
547:
546:
543:
540:
536:
535:
532:
529:
525:
524:
521:
518:
514:
513:
510:
507:
503:
502:
499:
496:
492:
491:
488:
485:
481:
480:
477:
474:
470:
469:
466:
463:
459:
458:
455:
452:
448:
447:
444:
441:
437:
436:
433:
430:
426:
425:
422:
419:
415:
414:
411:
408:
404:
403:
400:
397:
393:
392:
389:
386:
382:
381:
378:
375:
371:
370:
367:
364:
360:
359:
356:
353:
349:
348:
345:
342:
338:
337:
334:
331:
327:
326:
323:
320:
316:
315:
312:
309:
305:
304:
301:
298:
294:
293:
290:
287:
283:
282:
279:
276:
270:
269:
266:
263:
259:
258:
255:
252:
248:
247:
244:
241:
237:
236:
233:
230:
226:
225:
222:
219:
199:
196:
155:
152:
146:
143:
117:
116:
31:
29:
22:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1523:
1512:
1509:
1507:
1504:
1502:
1499:
1497:
1494:
1493:
1491:
1482:
1479:
1477:
1474:
1472:
1470:
1466:
1464:
1461:
1459:
1456:
1455:
1451:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1428:
1424:
1418:
1412:
1407:
1406:
1399:
1398:
1394:
1385:
1381:
1374:
1372:
1368:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1348:
1345:
1338:
1335:
1323:
1319:
1312:
1309:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1281:
1278:
1274:
1269:
1268:
1261:
1258:
1254:. New Jersey.
1253:
1249:
1245:
1239:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1219:
1216:
1205:
1201:
1195:
1192:
1186:
1183:
1177:
1174:
1161:
1157:
1151:
1149:
1147:
1143:
1137:
1134:
1129:
1125:
1119:
1116:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1100:
1097:
1093:
1090:
1085:
1082:
1075:
1071:
1068:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1053:
1050:
1048:
1045:
1043:
1040:
1038:
1037:
1033:
1031:
1028:
1027:
1023:
1021:
1018:
1013:
1009:
1008:
1001:
993:
991:
988:
986:
985:
980:
979:Judith Miller
976:
975:Valerie Plame
972:
964:
962:
960:
956:
952:
948:
943:
940:
936:
935:
929:
925:
924:
918:
915:
911:
906:
902:
897:
893:
889:
884:
881:
877:
873:
872:
866:
862:
858:
848:
845:
837:
834:February 2012
827:
823:
817:
816:
811:This section
809:
805:
800:
799:
793:
786:
783:
780:
779:
775:
772:
769:
768:
764:
761:
759:West Virginia
758:
757:
753:
750:
747:
746:
742:
739:
736:
735:
731:
728:
725:
724:
720:
717:
714:
713:
709:
706:
703:
702:
698:
695:
692:
691:
687:
684:
681:
680:
676:
673:
670:
669:
665:
662:
659:
658:
654:
651:
648:
647:
643:
640:
637:
636:
632:
629:
626:
625:
621:
618:
615:
614:
610:
607:
604:
603:
599:
596:
593:
592:
588:
585:
582:
581:
577:
574:
571:
570:
566:
563:
560:
559:
555:
552:
550:New Hampshire
549:
548:
544:
541:
538:
537:
533:
530:
527:
526:
522:
519:
516:
515:
511:
508:
505:
504:
500:
497:
494:
493:
489:
486:
483:
482:
478:
475:
472:
471:
467:
464:
462:Massachusetts
461:
460:
456:
453:
450:
449:
445:
442:
439:
438:
434:
431:
428:
427:
423:
420:
417:
416:
412:
409:
406:
405:
401:
398:
395:
394:
390:
387:
384:
383:
379:
376:
373:
372:
368:
365:
362:
361:
357:
354:
351:
350:
346:
343:
340:
339:
335:
332:
329:
328:
324:
321:
318:
317:
313:
310:
307:
306:
302:
299:
296:
295:
291:
288:
285:
284:
280:
277:
275:
272:
271:
267:
264:
261:
260:
256:
253:
250:
249:
245:
242:
239:
238:
234:
231:
228:
227:
223:
220:
217:
216:
208:
205:
197:
195:
193:
190:decision. In
189:
183:
179:
177:
173:
169:
168:
163:
162:
153:
151:
144:
142:
140:
134:
132:
128:
124:
113:
110:
102:
91:
88:
84:
81:
77:
74:
70:
67:
63:
60: –
59:
55:
54:Find sources:
48:
44:
38:
37:
32:This article
30:
26:
21:
20:
1468:
1440:. Retrieved
1435:
1404:
1384:The Guardian
1383:
1361:
1357:
1347:
1337:
1325:. Retrieved
1321:
1311:
1299:. Retrieved
1295:the original
1280:
1275: (2010).
1265:
1260:
1251:
1238:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1207:. Retrieved
1203:
1194:
1185:
1176:
1164:. Retrieved
1159:
1136:
1128:the original
1118:
1099:
1091:
1084:
1056:
1036:In re Madden
1034:
1005:
1003:
989:
982:
971:Plame affair
968:
944:
932:
921:
919:
913:
909:
904:
900:
895:
891:
885:
879:
875:
869:
867:
863:
859:
855:
840:
831:
820:Please help
815:verification
812:
682:South Dakota
660:Rhode Island
649:Pennsylvania
605:North Dakota
201:
191:
187:
184:
180:
165:
159:
157:
148:
135:
122:
120:
105:
99:January 2012
96:
86:
79:
72:
65:
53:
41:Please help
36:verification
33:
1233:1263 (2007)
1110:website of
1064:Jana Winter
947:White House
495:Mississippi
297:Connecticut
1490:Categories
1442:January 2,
1395:References
1209:2021-04-27
1166:January 2,
1017:Aid Access
748:Washington
572:New Mexico
561:New Jersey
274:California
221:Shield law
198:State laws
145:Definition
123:shield law
69:newspapers
1229:259, 922
1204:Community
1070:Josh Wolf
917:the law.
880:Branzburg
770:Wisconsin
693:Tennessee
484:Minnesota
429:Louisiana
188:Branzburg
1436:SPLC.org
1160:SPLC.org
1024:See also
1012:abortion
901:Venezia.
737:Virginia
627:Oklahoma
583:New York
528:Nebraska
506:Missouri
473:Michigan
451:Maryland
418:Kentucky
374:Illinois
319:Delaware
286:Colorado
262:Arkansas
139:abortion
1327:18 July
1301:18 July
1106:on the
914:Venezia
910:Venezia
905:Venezia
896:Venezia
781:Wyoming
726:Vermont
517:Montana
385:Indiana
341:Georgia
330:Florida
251:Arizona
229:Alabama
176:hashish
154:Origins
83:scholar
1413:
1291:Thomas
1271:,
1225:, 191
926:, the
638:Oregon
539:Nevada
407:Kansas
352:Hawaii
240:Alaska
85:
78:
71:
64:
56:
1076:Notes
876:Cohen
704:Texas
440:Maine
363:Idaho
218:State
90:JSTOR
76:books
1444:2012
1411:ISBN
1364:(1).
1329:2013
1303:2013
1231:A.2d
1227:N.J.
1168:2012
957:and
937:the
903:The
878:and
776:Yes
765:Yes
754:Yes
743:Yes
732:Yes
721:Yes
715:Utah
710:Yes
688:Yes
677:Yes
655:Yes
633:Yes
622:Yes
616:Ohio
600:Yes
589:Yes
556:Yes
512:Yes
501:Yes
490:Yes
468:Yes
446:Yes
435:Yes
413:Yes
402:Yes
396:Iowa
391:Yes
380:Yes
369:Yes
358:Yes
347:Yes
336:Yes
325:Yes
303:Yes
281:Yes
268:Yes
257:Yes
246:Yes
235:Yes
131:U.S.
62:news
1362:123
981:of
824:by
787:No
773:Yes
762:Yes
751:Yes
740:Yes
729:Yes
718:Yes
707:Yes
699:No
696:Yes
674:Yes
666:No
663:Yes
652:Yes
644:No
641:Yes
630:Yes
619:Yes
611:No
608:Yes
597:Yes
586:Yes
578:No
575:Yes
567:No
564:Yes
545:No
542:Yes
534:No
531:Yes
523:No
520:Yes
487:Yes
479:No
476:Yes
457:No
454:Yes
443:Yes
432:Yes
424:No
421:Yes
410:Yes
388:Yes
377:Yes
355:Yes
344:Yes
333:Yes
322:Yes
314:No
311:Yes
300:Yes
292:No
289:Yes
278:Yes
265:Yes
254:Yes
243:Yes
232:Yes
170:in
45:by
1492::
1434:.
1382:.
1370:^
1360:.
1356:.
1320:.
1289:.
1250:.
1246:.
1202:.
1158:.
1145:^
784:No
685:No
553:No
509:No
498:No
465:No
399:No
366:No
141:.
121:A
1446:.
1419:.
1386:.
1331:.
1305:.
1212:.
1170:.
847:)
841:(
836:)
832:(
818:.
112:)
106:(
101:)
97:(
87:·
80:·
73:·
66:·
39:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
