green
Positive treatment
Circuit Split
Quoted verbatim 3×
12.9 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2004 ·
…of course, the less the lawyer's 'mental processes' are involved, the less will be the burden to show good cause.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 35 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
Mead Data Central, Inc. v. United States Department of the Air Force
(6×)
But see Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487, 491-92 (7th Cir. 1970), aff'd per curiam by equally divided court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971) (privilege applies so long as subject of employee’s communication was performance of duties of his employment).
examined
Cited "but see"
Bird v. Penn Central Co.
(3×)
But see Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487, 492 (C.A.7, 1970), aff’d. by equally divided court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971), since we find that a sufficient showing to compel production of the attorney work product has been demonstrated. .
examined
Cited "but see"
Gorzegno v. Maguire
(3×)
Pa.1962), mandamus and prohibition denied, sub nom., General Electric Co. v. Kirkpatrick, 312 F.2d 742 (3d Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 943 , 83 S. Ct. 937 , 9 L.Ed.2d 969 (1963); Natta v. Hogan, 392 F.2d 686, 692 (10th Cir. 1968); but see Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487 (7th Cir. 1970), aff’d by an equally divided court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.
cited
Cited "but see"
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. v. Fielding
But see, Harper & Row Publishers v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487 , affirmed per curiam by an equally divided court, 400 U.S. 348 .
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re: USA
ecause maintenance of the attorney-client privilege up to its proper limits has substantial importance to the administration of justice, and because an appeal after disclosure of the privileged communication is an inadequate remedy, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus is appropr…
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re: United States of America
ecause maintenance of the attorney-client privilege up to its proper limits has substantial importance to the administration of justice, and because an appeal after disclosure of the privileged communication is an inadequate remedy, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus is appropr…
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena
(3×)
of course, the less the lawyer's 'mental processes' are involved, the less will be the burden to show good cause.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Admiral Insurance Company v. United States District Court
As the Seventh Circuit stated in Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487 (7th Cir.1970), aff'd, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971): "[B]ecause maintenance of the attorney-client privilege up to its proper limits has substantial importance to the administration of justice, and because an appeal after disclosure of the privileged communication is an inadequate remedy, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus is appropriate." Id. at 492.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Admiral Insurance v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona
As the Seventh Circuit stated in Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487 (7th Cir.1970), aff'd, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971): “[Bjecause maintenance of the attorney-client privilege up to its proper limits has substantial importance to the administration of justice, and because an appeal after disclosure of the privileged communication is an inadequate remedy, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus is appropriate.” Id. at 492.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Leer v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railway Co.
(2×)
Id. at 491.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marriott Corp. v. American Academy of Psychotherapists, Inc.
In this test ‘an employee of a corporation, though not a member of its control group, is sufficiently identified with the corporation . . . where the employee makes the communication at the direction of his superiors in the corporation and where the subject matter upon which the attorney’s advice is sought by the corporation and dealt with in the communication is the performance by the employee of the duties of his employment.’ Id. at 491-492.” Diversified Industries, Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F2d 596, 608 (8th Cir. 1977) (en banc).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated July 13, 1979
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
In that case, the court stated: “We conclude that an employee of a corporation, though not a member of its control group, is sufficiently identified with the corporation so that his communication to the corporation’s attorney is privileged where the employee makes the communication at the direction of his superiors in the corporation and where the subject matter upon which the attorney’s advice is sought by the corporation and dealt with in the communication is the performance by the employee of the duties of his employment.” Id. at 491-92.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
An employee of a corporation is sufficiently identified with the corporation “where the subject matter upon which the attorney’s advice is sought by the corporation and dealt with in the communication is the performance by the employee of the duties of his employment” id. at 491-92, and the communication is made at the direction of a corporate superior.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Diversified Industries, Inc. v. The Honorable James H. Meredith, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
(8×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
In this test, “an employee of a corporation, though not a member of its control group, is sufficiently identified with the corporation * * * where the employee makes the communication at the direction of his superiors in the corporation and where the subject matter upon which the attorney’s advice is sought by the corporation and dealt with in the communication is the performance by the employee of the duties of his employment.” Id. at 491-492.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Long v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp.
Ed. 451 .” 3 Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker (7th Cir. 1970), 423 Fed. 2d 487, affirmed (1971), 400 U. S. 348 , 91 Sup. Ct. 479, 27 L.
examined
Cited "see"
Charvat v. Valente
(3×)
Corley v. Rosewood Care Ctr., Inc., 142 F.3d 1041, 1052-53 (7th Cir.1998) (“Rule 26 therefore assumes that the taking of a witness statement is entirely proper, even where the statement is recorded and transcribed by a court reporter, and the rule proceeds to address the circumstances under which the statement may be discoverable.”); see Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487, 492 (7th Cir.1970), affirmed, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971) (Statements of witnesses taken by an attorney are work-product.).
examined
Cited "see"
Newport Pacific Inc. v. County of San Diego
(3×)
See Epstein, supra, at 79, citing Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487, 491 (7th Cir.1970), aff'd. by equally divided court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971) (“An employee of a corporation though not a member of its control group, is sufficiently identified with the corporation so that his communication to the corporation’s attorney is privileged where the employee makes the communication at the direction of his superi- or in the corporation and where the subject matter upon which the attorney’s advice is sought by the corporation and dealt with in the…
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re:General Motors v.
See Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487, 492 (7th Cir. 1970), aff'd by equally divided Court, 400 U.S. 348 (1971). 1 We limit our discussion to the eight documents at issue: (1) Document 1; (2) Document 210; (3) Document 210A; (4) Document 213; (5) Document 216; (6) Document 224; (7) Document 233; and (8) certain handwritten notes of William Cichowski, an engineer at GM. -2- After reviewing certain relevant, lawfully obtained documents,2 the district court correctly held that the plaintiffs met the threshold standard of proof to justify in camera review of the allegedly privi…
examined
Cited "see"
In Re: General Motors Corporation
(6×)
See Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487, 492 (7th Cir.1970), aff'd by equally divided Court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971).
examined
Cited "see"
In Re Bieter Company
(3×)
See Decker v. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971), aff'g by an equally divided court, 423 F.2d 487 (7th Cir.1970).
examined
Cited "see"
Thornton v. Continental Grain Co.
(3×)
See Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487, 492 (7th Cir. 1970), affirmed, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971).
examined
Cited "see"
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Gulf & Western Industries, Inc.
(3×)
The “subject matter test” provides that “an employee of a corporation, though not a member of its control group, is sufficiently identified with the corporation so that his communication to the corporation’s lawyer is privileged where the employee made the communication at the direction of his superiors where the subject matter upon which the lawyer’s advice was sought by the corporation and dealt with in the communication was within the performance by the employee of the duties of his employment.” Diversified Industries, Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596, 602 (8th Cir. 1978) (en banc…
examined
Cited "see"
Sneider v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.
(3×)
See Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487 (7th Cir. 1970) (Per curiam), aff’d without opinion by equally divided court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971); See Diversified Industries, Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1977) (en banc).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Bruno
(2×)
See Bruno v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 350 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971).
examined
Cited "see"
General Counsel v. United States
(3×)
See Harper & Row Pub., Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487, 491-92 (7th Cir. 1970), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971).
examined
Cited "see"
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena
(3×)
See Harper & Row Pub., Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487, 491-92 (7th Cir. 1970), Aff'd by an equally divided Court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971).
examined
Cited "see"
Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Honorable Peter T. Fay, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida
(3×)
See Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487, 491-492 (7th Cir. 1970), aff’d mem. by equally divided Court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Jancsek
(3×)
See, e.g., Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487, 491-492 (7th Cir. 1970), aff’d by an equally divided court per curiam, 400 U.S. 348 , [ 91 S Ct 479 ,] 27 L.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lipshy
(3×)
See, e. g., Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487 (7th Cir. 1970), aff'd per curiam, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971), finding that an employee at a corporation, though not a member of its control group, is sufficiently identified with the corporation so that his communication to the corporation’s attorney is privileged where the employee makes the communication at the direction of his superiors in the corporation and where the subject matter upon which the attorney’s advice is sought by the corporation and dealt within the communication is performance by…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Grand Jury Investigation. Appeal of United States of America
(6×)
See, e.g., Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487 (7th Cir. 1970), Aff'd by an equally divided court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971); Xerox Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 64 F.R.D. 367, 377-81 (S.D.N.Y.1974); 4 Moore's Federal Practice P 26.63(8), at 26-394, and P 26.64(4), at 26-442 (1970); Note, 64 Va.L.Rev., Supra, at 339. 31 In declining to afford the interview memoranda absolute protection, we do not hold that they are to be treated identically to the questionnaires.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. D. H. Overmyer Telecasting Co.
(3×)
See also Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487, 491-92 (7th Cir. 1970), aff’d, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rmi Company Nl Industries, Inc. v. Hon. Daniel J. Snyder, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(3×)
See, e. g., Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487 (7th Cir. 1970), aff’d by an equally divided court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971); Hartley Pen Company v. United States District Court, 287 F.2d 324 (9th Cir. 1961). 3 .
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
J. H. Rutter Rex Manufacturing Company, Inc., Petitioner-Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross
(3×)
Miss., 1970); see also Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 7 Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 487 , aff’d by equally divided court, 1971, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 , reh. denied, 401 U.S. 950 , 91 S.Ct. 917 , 28 L.Ed.2d 234 ; see generally, Wright & Miller, 8 Federal Practice & Procedure § 2024; and non-department heads, cf. United States v. Morgan, supra, does not preclude the Board from claiming a qualified privilege for its investigative work files.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bernard M. Decker, United States District Judge
v.
Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.
v.
Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.
113.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 1, 1971.
Cited by 7 opinions | Published
Citer courts: D. Massachusetts (3) · Fifth Circuit (2)
Bernard M. DECKER, United States District Judge, et al.
v.
HARPER & ROW PUBLISHERS, INC., et al.
No. 113.
Supreme Court of the United States
January 12, 1971
Rehearing Denied March 1, 1971.
See 401 U.S. 950, 91 S.Ct. 917.
Lee A. Freeman, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for petitioners.
H. Templeton Brown, Chicago, Ill., for respondents.
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
PER CURIAM.
[*~348]1
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
[*~349]2
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.