green
Positive treatment
4.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Returnable December 16, 2015
That is not the case here. 14 Although Section 16.2 provides otherwise, Appellants also 15 suggest that a unilateral diplomatic note cannot bear upon the 16 requirements of a mutual agreement because it is unilateral. 17 Appellants are incorrect, see, e.g., United States v. Kostadinov, 734 F.2d 18 905, 912‐13 (2d Cir. 1984) (acknowledging the validity of unilateral 19 diplomatic notes sent to Chiefs of Mission specifying that “all 20 mission personnel entitled to diplomatic privileges and immunities 21 [pursuant to the VCDR] . . . must reside in the Washington area”), 22 particularly whe…
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re: A Witness Before the Special Grand Jury 2000-2
See Green v. IRS, 556 F.Supp. 79, 85 (N.D.Ind.1982) (privilege “unquestionably” applies to conversations between government lawyers and administrative personnel), aff'd, 734 F.2d 18 (7th Cir.1984); Restatement (Third) of Law Governing Lawyers § 74 (2000) (“[T]he attorney-client privilege extends to a communication of a governmental organization.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ronald L. Bullion v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, A. Freeman Edgerton v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Anthony v. Noto, Joseph A. Dazzio, and Carol L. Harelson v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
See Green v. IRS, 556 F.Supp. 79, 84-85 (N.D.Ind.1982), aff'd, 734 F.2d 18 (7th Cir.1984). 17 61 Further, petitioners again fail to show prejudice because the Board did not rely on Hoch's recommendations on this issue.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bullion v. Federal Deposit Insurance
See Green v. IRS, 556 F.Supp. 79, 84-85 (N.D.Ind.1982), aff’d, 734 F.2d 18 (7th Cir.1984). 17 Further, petitioners again fail to show prejudice because the Board did not rely on Hoch’s recommendations on this issue.
discussed
Cited "see"
Indiana State Highway Commission v. Morris
(2×)
See Green v. I.R.S., 556 F.Supp. 79 (N.D.Ind.1982) (attorney-client privilege applicable to relationship between Government attorneys and administrative personnel), aff'd, 734 F.2d 18 (7th Cir.1984); Riddle Spring Realty Co. v. State, 107 N.H. 271 , 220 A.2d 751 (1966) (report made by state employee at request of attorney representing state agency privileged); People ex rel.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Hunt v. U.S. Marine Corps
See, e.g., Green v. IRS, 556 F.Supp. 79, 85 (N.D.Ind.1982), aff'd, 734 F.2d 18 (7th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
See also Green v. Internal Revenue Service, 556 F.Supp. 79, 84 (N.D.Ind.1982), affd without opinion, 734 F.2d 18 (7th Cir.1984); In re Franklin National Bank Securities Litigation, 478 F.Supp. 577 (E.D.N.Y.1979).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
U.S. Ex Rel. Spann
v.
Derobertis
v.
Derobertis
83-2078.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Apr 3, 1984.
734 F.2d 18
Published
U.S. ex rel. Spann
v.
Derobertis
83-2078
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
4/3/84
1
N.D.Ill.
AFFIRMED