Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 It is true that Congress, in enacting Fed. R. Evid. 501, 'manifested an affirmative intention not to freeze the law of privilege. Its purpose rather was to 'provide the courts with the flexibility to develop rules of privilege on a case-by-case basis,' and to leave the door open to change.' Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47, 63 L. Ed. 2d 186, 100 S. Ct. 906 (1980) (quoting 102 Cong. Rec. 40,891 (1974) (statement of Rep. William Hungate)). In doing so, however, courts are admonished that privileges are generally disfavored; See, e.g., In re Dinnan, 661 F.2d 426, 427 (5th Cir. 1981) ('The basis of justice is truth and our system frowns upon impediments to ascertaining that truth.'), cert. denied sub nom. Dinnan v. Blaubergs, 457 U.S. 1106, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1314, 102 S. Ct. 2904 (1982). that ''the public . . . has a right to every man's evidence'';  Trammel, 445 U.S. at 50 (quoting United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331, 94 L. Ed. 884, 70 S. Ct. 724 (1950)). and that privileges are tolerable 'only to the very limited extent that permitting a refusal to testify or ...

Register or login to access full content