californians for Scientific Integrity
dunno if redumbdent or premature
WHOSE SIDE?
==
- FinamdLaw
- Caselaw
- California
- CA Ct. App.
- CALIFORNIANS FOR SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Court of Appeal, Third District, California.
CALIFORNIANS FOR SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIANS FOR SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent.
No. C028522.
-- July 06, 2000
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Theodore B. Olson, Los Angeles, Mark A. Perry, Thomas G. Hungar, Washington, DC, John C.Yoo, and Zumbrun & Findley, Ronald A. Zumbrun, Sacramento, John H. Findley, and Jeffrey H. Speich for Plaintiff and Appellant.Law Office of Eric G. Scheie, for The Claremont Institute, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Christopher M. Patti, James E. Holst, John F. Lundberg and Eric K. Behrens, Oakland, for Defendant and Respondent.
PlaintiffCalifornians for Scientific Integrity filed suit against defendant Regents of the University of California (the University), alleging the University had improperly permitted a professor to use public funds and resources to advance anti-smoking efforts. The trial court granted the University's demurrer and entered judgment in its favor.
Plaintiff appeals, reiterating that the use of public funds and resources for these purposes is impermissible and a violation of the First Amendment. We disagree and shall affirm.
standard of Review
“In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint against a general demurrer, we are guided by long-settled rules. ‘We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law․ We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.’ [Citation.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. [Citation.] When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. [Citation.] And when it is sustained without leave to amend, we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment: if it can be, the trial court has abused its discretion and we reverse; if not, there has been no abuse of discretion and we affirm. [Citations.] The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff.” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58; see also CAMSI IV v. Hunter Technology Corp. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1525, 1538-1539, 282 Cal.Rptr. 80.)
http://elr.info/sites/default/files/articles/35.10857.pdf
Scientific Speech: Protecting the Right of Environmental Scientists to **...**
elr.info/sites/default/files/articles/35.10857.pdf
-
by RR Kuehn - 2005 - Cited by 1 - Related articles
were allegedly fired or otherwise attacked because employers or others were disturbed by.... (ISEE) defines research suppression or oppression as ob- structing ...
The threat of litigation, even where the likelihood of success by the plaintiff is doubtful, can dissuade companies
from publishing scientific research. When Dr. Stanton
Glantzand associates wrote a book analyzing secret tobacco
industry documents on the health effects of smoking, publisher after publisher turned down the opportunity to publish
the book.
nature 406 2000
https://www.nature.com/articles/35018718
Supporters of the US tobacco industry have failed to silence one of its most prominent academic critics.
An appeals court in California has ruled that Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), can use his position to back the state government's anti-smoking efforts.
In 1997, Californians for Scientific Integrity — a group set up at a Sacramento attorney's office by the industry-sponsored National Smokers Alliance — sued Glantz in an attempt to stop him using his academic position to help the state of California fight smoking.
The group alleged that Glantz's 15 years of campaigning was a misuse of public funds. It also charged that the university's approval of his activities was a violation of the rights of those Californians who did not agree with the anti-smoking cause.
But two weeks ago, a three-judge panel of the Third District Court of Appeals in Sacramento rejected the allegations, reaffirming the right of any faculty member at the University of California to campaign against smoking.
“It makes me very glad to work at a university that takes academic freedom and public interest very seriously and has the courage to stand up to … the tobacco industry,” said Glantz, who is widely known for challenging the industry's claims that it was unaware of the dangers of smoking.
Citing statements on a recruitment flyer, he claims that Californians for Scientific Integrity “was set up for the express purpose of suing the University of California and silencing me”.
“It was clear intimidation,” he adds. “But this shows you can stand up and beat them.”
Mark Perry, a Washington DC-based attorney with the firm of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher that represents the suing group, did not answer a request for comment. Perry has said separately that no decision has been reached on whether to appeal to the California Supreme Court.
Nor was there a response from the Claremont Institute, a conservative think-tank in California that filed a ‘friend of the court’ brief in support of the group.
Although the decision only addresses the rights of university staff to campaign against smoking, it could be far-reaching. Along with other cases, any faculty member of a Californian public university could use it to affirm his or her right to campaign for any cause endorsed by the state legislature.
Last month, Glantz, who conducts research in UCSF's cardiology division, won the annual Public Service Achievement Award of the lobby group Common Cause for his “tireless and tenacious” efforts against smoking. In the past, pro-smoking groups have attacked him in both California and Washington — accusing him of falsifying a result in a study of the effects of ‘second-hand smoke’, and seeking to cut off his research funds.
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Court-rules-professor-can-use-his-job-to-fight-3054189.php
Court rules professor can use his job to fight smoking
By Bob Egelko
Published 4:00 am PDT, Tuesday, July 11, 2000
:{:{
}:}:
The tobacco industry's leading nemesis in California can continue to fight smoking from his perch as a UC professor, says a state appellate court.
An industry-allied group, Californians for Scientific Integrity, sued the University of California in 1998 over Stanton Glantz's use of his university job and resources to push for tougher state action against smoking. The suit contended Glantz's activities were a misuse of tax money.
But the 3rd District Court of Appeal said Glantz's activity was authorized by the Legislature, which has directed the state to "play a leading role in promoting a smoke-free society by the year 2000."
Glantz, a professor of medicine at UC-San Francisco, was a founder and former president of Californians for Nonsmokers' Rights. He has worked for state and local bans on smoking in public buildings and for stronger messages in state-funded anti-smoking ads.
His studies on smoking and health have been disputed by tobacco companies, which have tried to get Congress and the California Legislature to cut off his government funding.The suit by Californians for Scientific Integrity initially included a challenge to the validity of a study by Glantz that found that prohibitions on smoking in restaurants did not hurt tourism. That claim was later dropped and the group ultimately sought only to halt the alleged misuse of state funds for lobbying.
"They were attempting to intimidate me and the university," Glantz said Monday. "The university stood up to the thugs in cigarette companies again and won again."
Mark A. Perry, a lawyer for the group that sued the university, said no decision has been made on a further appeal. He said he disagreed with the court's conclusion that the general statements in state law about a smoke-free society authorized Glantz to use state funds to promote anti-smoking policies.
Perry denied Glantz's assertion that Californians for Scientific Integrity was a front for the tobacco industry, but said it is partially funded by the National Smokers' Alliance, which draws funding from tobacco companies.
The appellate ruling Thursday upheld a decision by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Joe Gray to dismiss the suit without a trial. The court said California law forbids certain types of state-funded political activities, such as the use of state funds to influence election campaigns, but does not prohibit activity that the Legislature itself has authorized. <
==
https://books.google.com/books?id=RplatBlLnGUC
Pesticides in the Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments: Second National Research Conference
Front Cover
Diana L. Weigmann
DIANE Publishing, 1994 - 555 pages
0 Reviews
Includes 50 research papers on risk assessment, monitoring, toxicity, waste disposal, environmental regulations, pesticide contamination of drinking water supplies, wastewater sludge, groundwater and surface water, and much more.
Californians for Scientific Integrity v. Regents of University of ...
https://law.justia.com › cases › california › court-of-appeal
1.
CALIFORNIANS FOR SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY v. REGENTS ...
https://caselaw.findlaw.com › ca-court-of-appeal
1.
Suit Seeking to Stop UC Tobacco Foe Is Dismissed - LA Times
https://www.latimes.com › archives › la-xpm-1997-dec-02-mn-59765-story
1.
Effect of Smoking Bans Studied - Los Angeles Times
https://www.latimes.com › archives › la-xpm-1997-nov-04-mn-50067-story
1.
Court rules professor can use his job to fight smoking - SFGate
https://www.sfgate.com › news › article › Court-rules-professor-can-use-hi...
1.
Shared Cognition in Organizations: The Management of Knowledge
https://books.google.com › books
John M. Levine, Leigh L. Thompson, David M. Messick - 2013 - Business & Economics
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (Richards, 1997) described efforts by Californians for Scientific Integrity to discredit a study by Dr. Stanton Glantz, the ...
:{
Anti-smoking critic wins campaigning right | Nature
https://www.nature.com › news
by R Dalton - 2000
Jul 20, 2000 - In 1997, Californians for Scientific Integrity — a group set up at a Sacramento attorney's office by the industry-sponsored National Smokers ...
}:
Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Tobacco Researcher at U. of Cal.
https://www.chronicle.com › article › Judge-Dismisses-Lawsuit-Over
Dec 12, 1997 - ... legal basis for the lawsuit, which had been filed by Californians for Scientific Integrity, a coalition of tobacco interests and restaurateurs that is ...
Pesticides in the Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments: ...
https://books.google.com › books
Diana L. Weigmann - 1994
The lawsuit was eventually dismissed with prejudice from a California court (Californians for Scientific Integrity v. University of California, 1997). Smokers' Rights ...
State and Local Legislative Action to Reduce Tobacco Use
https://books.google.com › books
Donald R. Shopland - 2000
The lawsuit was eventually dismissed with prejudice from a California court (Californians for Scientific Integrity v. University of California, 1997). Smokers' Rights ...