34 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Gilmoregreen2 sentences2021See McCartney v Attorney General, 231 Mich App 722, 725 ; 587 NW2d 824 (1998) (holding that memoranda from the Attorney General to the Governor were exempt from statutory disclosure requirements pursuant to the attorney-client privilege); Booth Newspapers, Inc v Wyoming City Council, 168 Mich App 459 ; 425 NW2d 695 (1988) (analyzing the attorney-client privilege of a city council); Gilmore, 222 Mich App at 453 (concluding “that the work-product privilege applies in the context of criminal proceedings to the work product of the prosecutor”). 2021See McCartney v Attorney General, 231 Mich App 722, 725 ; 587 NW2d 824 (1998) (holding that memoranda from the Attorney General to the Governor were exempt from statutory disclosure requirements pursuant to the attorney-client privilege); Booth Newspapers, Inc v Wyoming City Council, 168 Mich App 459 ; 425 NW2d 695 (1988) (analyzing the attorney-client privilege of a city council); Gilmore, 222 Mich App at 453 (concluding “that the work-product privilege applies in the context of criminal proceedings to the work product of the prosecutor”). | 4 | 5 |
Hickman v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2021The work-product doctrine similarly reflects the necessity recognized historically that attorneys must “work with a certain degree of privacy, free from 7 unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel.” Hickman v Taylor, 329 US 495, 510-511 ; 67 S Ct 385 ; 91 L Ed 451 (1947). 4 4 It is noteworthy, however, that neither the parties in this case, the dissent, nor our own independent research has discovered any opinion from this Court applying the privilege or protection to governmental bodies. 2021The work-product doctrine similarly reflects the necessity recognized historically that attorneys must “work with a certain degree of privacy, free from 7 unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel.” Hickman v Taylor, 329 US 495, 510-511 ; 67 S Ct 385 ; 91 L Ed 451 (1947). 4 4 It is noteworthy, however, that neither the parties in this case, the dissent, nor our own independent research has discovered any opinion from this Court applying the privilege or protection to governmental bodies. | 3 | 9 |
Powers v. City of Troygreen2 sentences1991The "good cause” requirement of the original Federal Rule 34 was not incorporated into our corresponding rule 310, but in a series of decisions the Michigan Supreme Court and our Court ruled that "good cause” or "cause” must be shown before trial preparation materials can be required to be produced. [Powers v City of Troy, 28 Mich App 24, 28-29, 32 (1970).] From such decisions as Utley and Powers, it is clear that Michigan recognizes a work-product privilege not only through its court rules but also through its common law. 1991Thus, although that decision of the United States Supreme Court is not binding on the states and Michigan is free to develop its own discovery jurisprudence, Hickman v Taylor is where we must begin if we are to understand where we are. * * * The "good cause" requirement of the original Federal Rule 34 was not incorporated into our corresponding rule 310, but in a series of decisions the Michigan Supreme Court and our Court ruled that "good cause" or "cause" must be shown before trial preparation materials can be required to be produced. [ Powers v City of Troy, 28 Mich App 24, 28-29, 32 (1970) | 2 | 4 |
Koster v. June’s Trucking, Incgreen2 sentences2015Accordingly, even before plaintiffs can be required to demonstrate any substantial need or undue hardship, see id. (the burden shifts to the party seeking discovery to establish substantial need and undue hardship after the court determines whether the work-product doctrine applies), the trial court must first determine what materials in Farmers’ litigation file are subject to the privilege. 2014See Koster v June’s Trucking, Inc, 244 Mich App 162, 164 ; 625 NW2d 82 (2000) (holding that the trial court erred in failing to conduct an in camera inspection where the trial court ordered the defendants’ entire claim file be turned over without determining whether the work-product privilege protected the documents); Ostoin, 189 Mich App at 339 (“The trial court abused its discretion by categorically denying discovery of the files without first conducting an in camera inspection to determine whether they contain relevant, nonprivileged material subject to discovery by plaintiff.”); see also U | 2 | 3 |
McCartney v. Attorney Generalgreen2 sentences2021See McCartney v Attorney General, 231 Mich App 722, 725 ; 587 NW2d 824 (1998) (holding that memoranda from the Attorney General to the Governor were exempt from statutory disclosure requirements pursuant to the attorney-client privilege); Booth Newspapers, Inc v Wyoming City Council, 168 Mich App 459 ; 425 NW2d 695 (1988) (analyzing the attorney-client privilege of a city council); Gilmore, 222 Mich App at 453 (concluding “that the work-product privilege applies in the context of criminal proceedings to the work product of the prosecutor”). 2021See McCartney v Attorney General, 231 Mich App 722, 725 ; 587 NW2d 824 (1998) (holding that memoranda from the Attorney General to the Governor were exempt from statutory disclosure requirements pursuant to the attorney-client privilege); Booth Newspapers, Inc v Wyoming City Council, 168 Mich App 459 ; 425 NW2d 695 (1988) (analyzing the attorney-client privilege of a city council); Gilmore, 222 Mich App at 453 (concluding “that the work-product privilege applies in the context of criminal proceedings to the work product of the prosecutor”). | 2 | 2 |
American Tobacco Co. v. Pattersongreen2 sentences1991See Kent Corp v NLRB, 530 F2d 612, 623 (CA 5, 1976), cert den 429 US 920 ; 97 S Ct 316 ; 50 L Ed 2d 287 (1976); In re Grand Jury Investigation (United States), 599 F2d 1224, 1229 (CA 3, 1979). 1991See Kent Corp v NLRB, 530 F2d 612, 623 (CA 5, 1976), cert den 429 US 920 ; 97 S Ct 316 ; 50 L Ed 2d 287 (1976); In re Grand Jury Investigation (United States), 599 F2d 1224, 1229 (CA 3, 1979). | 2 | 2 |
D’alessandro Contracting Group, LLC v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2021As the majority concedes, the work-product privilege protects materials prepared by an attorney “in anticipation of litigation.” D’Alessandro Contracting Group, LLC v Wright, 308 Mich App 71 , 84 n 4; 862 NW2d 466 (2014). 2021As the majority concedes, the work-product privilege protects materials prepared by an attorney “in anticipation of litigation.” D’Alessandro Contracting Group, LLC v Wright, 308 Mich App 71 , 84 n 4; 862 NW2d 466 (2014). | 1 | 9 |
In Re Subpoena Duces Tecumgreen2 sentences1997In the context of the requirements of MCR 6.201, application of the work-product privilege would result in a criminal defendant's access to any information to which he is entitled under MCR 6.201, while protecting the prosecutor's opinions and conclusions from discovery. [7] We also note In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to the Wayne Co. Prosecutor, 191 Mich.App. 90 , 477 N.W.2d 412 (1991), remanded 444 Mich. 860 , 508 N.W.2d 508 (1993), ( On Remand ), 205 Mich.App. 700 , 518 N.W.2d 522 (1994), cited by the prosecutor. 1997In the context of the requirements of MCR 6.201, application of the work-product privilege would result in a criminal defendant's access to any information to which he is entitled under MCR 6.201, while protecting the prosecutor's opinions and conclusions from discovery. [7] We also note In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to the Wayne Co. Prosecutor, 191 Mich.App. 90 , 477 N.W.2d 412 (1991), remanded 444 Mich. 860 , 508 N.W.2d 508 (1993), ( On Remand ), 205 Mich.App. 700 , 518 N.W.2d 522 (1994), cited by the prosecutor. | 1 | 5 |
Great Lakes Concrete Pole Corp. v. Eashgreen2 sentences2015See Koster v June’s Trucking, Inc, 244 Mich App 162, 169 ; 625 NW2d 82 (2000), citing Great Lakes Concrete Pole Corp v Eash, 148 Mich App 649 , 656 n 6; 385 NW2d 296 (1986) (noting that “one method” to alleviate the burden of an in camera inspection of volumes of documents in complex litigation is to employ the method of federal courts requiring the production of a privilege log). 2002It is generally sufficient if the prospect of litigation is identifiable, either because of the facts of the situation or the fact that the claims have already arisen.” [Great Lakes Concrete Pole Corp v Eash, 148 Mich App 649, 654, n 2 ; 385 *246 NW2d 296 (1986), quoting United States v Davis, 636 F2d 1028 (CA 5, 1981).] Furthermore, we agree with the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, that the work-product doctrine does not require that an attorney prepare the disputed document only after a specific claim has arisen. | 1 | 2 |
| Paris Meadows, LLC v. City of Kentwoodgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Trontigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Estate of Chance Aaron Nash v. City of Grand Havengreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Chevron Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Columbia/Hca Healthcare Corporation Billing Practices Litigationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Docket No. 02-6239green | 1 | 1 |
| Ostoin v. Waterford Township Police Departmentgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Grand Jury Investigationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lisle v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Goldberg v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Useniagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Alaskagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Gilmore
green
2 sentences2021See People v Gilmore, 222 Mich App 442, 451 ; 564 NW2d 158 (1997). 2021See People v Gilmore, 222 Mich App 442, 451 ; 564 NW2d 158 (1997). | 5 | 1999–2021 |
Leibel v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2020Statements are generally subject to the work-product doctrine protects “documents and tangible things ... prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or another party’s representative.” MCR 2.302(B)(3); Leibel v General Motors Corp, 250 Mich App 229, 244-245 ; 646 NW2d 179 (2002). 2020Statements are generally subject to the work-product doctrine protects “documents and tangible things ... prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or another party’s representative.” MCR 2.302(B)(3); Leibel v General Motors Corp, 250 Mich App 229, 244-245 ; 646 NW2d 179 (2002). | 4 | 2011–2020 |
Messenger v. Ingham County Prosecutor
green
2 sentences2015The work-product doctrine protects from discovery “ ‘any notes, working papers, memoranda or similar materials, prepared by an attorney in anticipation of litigation . . . .’ ” Messenger v Ingham Co Prosecutor, 232 Mich App 633, 636-637 ; 591 NW2d 393 (1998), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed, 1990), p 1606. 2015The work-product doctrine protects from discovery “ ‘any notes, working papers, memoranda or similar materials, prepared by an attorney in anticipation of litigation . . . .’ ” Messenger v Ingham Co Prosecutor, 232 Mich App 633, 636-637 ; 591 NW2d 393 (1998), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed, 1990), p 1606. | 4 | 1999–2015 |
Upjohn Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences1999The United States Supreme Court observed in Upjohn Co v United States, 449 US 383, 399 ; 101 S Ct 677 ; 66 L Ed 2d 584 (1981), that under the work-product privilege, “[f]orcing an attorney to disclose notes and memoranda of witnesses’ oral statements is particularly disfavored because it tends to reveal the attor *184 ney’s mental processes . . . 1999The United States Supreme Court observed in Upjohn Co v United States, 449 US 383, 399 ; 101 S Ct 677 ; 66 L Ed 2d 584 (1981), that under the work-product privilege, “[f]orcing an attorney to disclose notes and memoranda of witnesses’ oral statements is particularly disfavored because it tends to reveal the attor *184 ney’s mental processes . . . | 3 | 1999–2021 |
Augustine v. Allstate Insurance
green
2 sentences2020Id. 2015Augustine v Allstate Ins Co, 292 Mich App 408, 419 ; 807 NW2d 77 (2011). | 3 | 2014–2020 |
In Re Subpoena Duces Tecum to Wayne Cty. Prosecutor
green
2 sentences1999Although any documents that would come under subsection 13(1)(n) would necessarily come under subsection 13(1)(i) as well, the latter reaches more broadly, being neither restricted to deliberative materials nor subject to exception upon a sufficient showing of public need for disclosure. [4] We decline to follow the dicta in In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, supra at 706, n. 2, 518 N.W.2d 522 , suggesting that where the work-product privilege does not apply for purposes of discovery (where a litigant is seeking discovery of the work product of a nonlitigant), the privilege likewise does not apply to 1997In the context of the requirements of MCR 6.201, application of the work-product privilege would result in a criminal defendant's access to any information to which he is entitled under MCR 6.201, while protecting the prosecutor's opinions and conclusions from discovery. [7] We also note In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to the Wayne Co. Prosecutor, 191 Mich.App. 90 , 477 N.W.2d 412 (1991), remanded 444 Mich. 860 , 508 N.W.2d 508 (1993), ( On Remand ), 205 Mich.App. 700 , 518 N.W.2d 522 (1994), cited by the prosecutor. | 3 | 1997–1999 |
People v. Aldridge
green
2 sentences1997People v Johnson, 168 Mich App 581, 584-585 ; 425 NW2d 187 (1988) (trial court did not abuse discretion in ordering discoveiy by the prosecutor of a letter written by the defendant’s girlfriend to defense counsel because the letter did not constitute attorney work product); People v Heard, 58 Mich App 312, 317 ; 227 NW2d 331 (1975) (prosecutor’s compilation of personal observations of prospective jurors by fellow prosecutors is protected by the work-product exception); People v Martin, 57 Mich App 84, 85-86 ; 225 NW2d 174 (1974) (prosecutor’s notes containing an analysis of the outcome of prio 1997People v Johnson, 168 Mich App 581, 584-585 ; 425 NW2d 187 (1988) (trial court did not abuse discretion in ordering discoveiy by the prosecutor of a letter written by the defendant’s girlfriend to defense counsel because the letter did not constitute attorney work product); People v Heard, 58 Mich App 312, 317 ; 227 NW2d 331 (1975) (prosecutor’s compilation of personal observations of prospective jurors by fellow prosecutors is protected by the work-product exception); People v Martin, 57 Mich App 84, 85-86 ; 225 NW2d 174 (1974) (prosecutor’s notes containing an analysis of the outcome of prio | 3 | 1975–1997 |
People v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1997People v Johnson, 168 Mich App 581, 584-585 ; 425 NW2d 187 (1988) (trial court did not abuse discretion in ordering discoveiy by the prosecutor of a letter written by the defendant’s girlfriend to defense counsel because the letter did not constitute attorney work product); People v Heard, 58 Mich App 312, 317 ; 227 NW2d 331 (1975) (prosecutor’s compilation of personal observations of prospective jurors by fellow prosecutors is protected by the work-product exception); People v Martin, 57 Mich App 84, 85-86 ; 225 NW2d 174 (1974) (prosecutor’s notes containing an analysis of the outcome of prio 1997People v Johnson, 168 Mich App 581, 584-585 ; 425 NW2d 187 (1988) (trial court did not abuse discretion in ordering discoveiy by the prosecutor of a letter written by the defendant’s girlfriend to defense counsel because the letter did not constitute attorney work product); People v Heard, 58 Mich App 312, 317 ; 227 NW2d 331 (1975) (prosecutor’s compilation of personal observations of prospective jurors by fellow prosecutors is protected by the work-product exception); People v Martin, 57 Mich App 84, 85-86 ; 225 NW2d 174 (1974) (prosecutor’s notes containing an analysis of the outcome of prio | 3 | 1989–1997 |
J. A. Utley Co. v. Saginaw Circuit Judge
neutral
2 sentences1991The Michigan Supreme Court in J A Utley Co v Saginaw Circuit Judge, 372 Mich 367, 373 ; 126 NW2d 696 (1964), in discussing Michigan’s common-law work-product privilege, stated: To determine in each like case whether a document sought to be discovered is privileged, we must bear in constant mind that the professional relationship does not arise when the attorney is an ordinary agent or employee of his principal; also that the privileged relationship has to be the special and personal one the common law has always protected. 1991The Michigan Supreme Court in J A Utley Co v Saginaw Circuit Judge, 372 Mich 367, 373 ; 126 NW2d 696 (1964), in discussing Michigan’s common-law work-product privilege, stated: To determine in each like case whether a document sought to be discovered is privileged, we must bear in constant mind that the professional relationship does not arise when the attorney is an ordinary agent or employee of his principal; also that the privileged relationship has to be the special and personal one the common law has always protected. | 3 | 1987–1991 |
Hunt v. Blackburn
green
2 sentences2021The attorney-client privilege “is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications” and “ ‘is founded upon the necessity, in the interest and administration of justice, of the aid of persons having knowledge of the law and skilled in its practice, which assistance can only be safely and readily availed of when free from the consequences or the apprehension of disclosure.’ ” Upjohn Co v United States, 449 US 383, 389 ; 101 S Ct 677 ; 66 L Ed 2d 584 (1981), quoting Hunt v Blackburn, 128 US 464, 470 ; 9 S Ct 125 ; 32 L Ed 488 (1888). 2021The attorney-client privilege “is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications” and “ ‘is founded upon the necessity, in the interest and administration of justice, of the aid of persons having knowledge of the law and skilled in its practice, which assistance can only be safely and readily availed of when free from the consequences or the apprehension of disclosure.’ ” Upjohn Co v United States, 449 US 383, 389 ; 101 S Ct 677 ; 66 L Ed 2d 584 (1981), quoting Hunt v Blackburn, 128 US 464, 470 ; 9 S Ct 125 ; 32 L Ed 488 (1888). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Pacific Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. O'Connor
green
2 sentences2021The attorney-client privilege “is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications” and “ ‘is founded upon the necessity, in the interest and administration of justice, of the aid of persons having knowledge of the law and skilled in its practice, which assistance can only be safely and readily availed of when free from the consequences or the apprehension of disclosure.’ ” Upjohn Co v United States, 449 US 383, 389 ; 101 S Ct 677 ; 66 L Ed 2d 584 (1981), quoting Hunt v Blackburn, 128 US 464, 470 ; 9 S Ct 125 ; 32 L Ed 488 (1888). 2021The attorney-client privilege “is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications” and “ ‘is founded upon the necessity, in the interest and administration of justice, of the aid of persons having knowledge of the law and skilled in its practice, which assistance can only be safely and readily availed of when free from the consequences or the apprehension of disclosure.’ ” Upjohn Co v United States, 449 US 383, 389 ; 101 S Ct 677 ; 66 L Ed 2d 584 (1981), quoting Hunt v Blackburn, 128 US 464, 470 ; 9 S Ct 125 ; 32 L Ed 488 (1888). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Secretary of State
green
2 sentences2021CPMC, 503 Mich at 61 . 2021CPMC, 503 Mich at 61 . | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Booth Newspapers, Inc v. Wyoming City Council
green
2 sentences2021See McCartney v Attorney General, 231 Mich App 722, 725 ; 587 NW2d 824 (1998) (holding that memoranda from the Attorney General to the Governor were exempt from statutory disclosure requirements pursuant to the attorney-client privilege); Booth Newspapers, Inc v Wyoming City Council, 168 Mich App 459 ; 425 NW2d 695 (1988) (analyzing the attorney-client privilege of a city council); Gilmore, 222 Mich App at 453 (concluding “that the work-product privilege applies in the context of criminal proceedings to the work product of the prosecutor”). 2021See McCartney v Attorney General, 231 Mich App 722, 725 ; 587 NW2d 824 (1998) (holding that memoranda from the Attorney General to the Governor were exempt from statutory disclosure requirements pursuant to the attorney-client privilege); Booth Newspapers, Inc v Wyoming City Council, 168 Mich App 459 ; 425 NW2d 695 (1988) (analyzing the attorney-client privilege of a city council); Gilmore, 222 Mich App at 453 (concluding “that the work-product privilege applies in the context of criminal proceedings to the work product of the prosecutor”). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
United States v. Deloitte LLP
green
2 sentences2017This is true because when common litigation interests are present, the transferee is not at all likely to disclose the work product material to the adversary." [ Id . at 83, 862 N.W.2d 466 , quoting United States v Deloitte LLP , 391 U.S. App. DC 318 , 330, 610 F.3d 129 (2010) (alterations by the D'Alessandro Court).] The D'Alessandro Court noted that the "[f]ederal courts' application of the common-interest doctrine is instructive" because of the similarity between state and federal rules regarding the work-product privilege and because "our courts routinely rely on federal cases for guidance 2017This is true because when common litigation interests are present, the transferee is not at all likely to disclose the work product material to the adversary." [ Id . at 83, 862 N.W.2d 466 , quoting United States v Deloitte LLP , 391 U.S. App. DC 318 , 330, 610 F.3d 129 (2010) (alterations by the D'Alessandro Court).] The D'Alessandro Court noted that the "[f]ederal courts' application of the common-interest doctrine is instructive" because of the similarity between state and federal rules regarding the work-product privilege and because "our courts routinely rely on federal cases for guidance | 2 | 2014–2017 |
People v. Heard
green
2 sentences1997People v Johnson, 168 Mich App 581, 584-585 ; 425 NW2d 187 (1988) (trial court did not abuse discretion in ordering discoveiy by the prosecutor of a letter written by the defendant’s girlfriend to defense counsel because the letter did not constitute attorney work product); People v Heard, 58 Mich App 312, 317 ; 227 NW2d 331 (1975) (prosecutor’s compilation of personal observations of prospective jurors by fellow prosecutors is protected by the work-product exception); People v Martin, 57 Mich App 84, 85-86 ; 225 NW2d 174 (1974) (prosecutor’s notes containing an analysis of the outcome of prio 1997People v Johnson, 168 Mich App 581, 584-585 ; 425 NW2d 187 (1988) (trial court did not abuse discretion in ordering discoveiy by the prosecutor of a letter written by the defendant’s girlfriend to defense counsel because the letter did not constitute attorney work product); People v Heard, 58 Mich App 312, 317 ; 227 NW2d 331 (1975) (prosecutor’s compilation of personal observations of prospective jurors by fellow prosecutors is protected by the work-product exception); People v Martin, 57 Mich App 84, 85-86 ; 225 NW2d 174 (1974) (prosecutor’s notes containing an analysis of the outcome of prio | 2 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Martin
neutral
2 sentences1997People v Johnson, 168 Mich App 581, 584-585 ; 425 NW2d 187 (1988) (trial court did not abuse discretion in ordering discoveiy by the prosecutor of a letter written by the defendant’s girlfriend to defense counsel because the letter did not constitute attorney work product); People v Heard, 58 Mich App 312, 317 ; 227 NW2d 331 (1975) (prosecutor’s compilation of personal observations of prospective jurors by fellow prosecutors is protected by the work-product exception); People v Martin, 57 Mich App 84, 85-86 ; 225 NW2d 174 (1974) (prosecutor’s notes containing an analysis of the outcome of prio 1997People v Johnson, 168 Mich App 581, 584-585 ; 425 NW2d 187 (1988) (trial court did not abuse discretion in ordering discoveiy by the prosecutor of a letter written by the defendant’s girlfriend to defense counsel because the letter did not constitute attorney work product); People v Heard, 58 Mich App 312, 317 ; 227 NW2d 331 (1975) (prosecutor’s compilation of personal observations of prospective jurors by fellow prosecutors is protected by the work-product exception); People v Martin, 57 Mich App 84, 85-86 ; 225 NW2d 174 (1974) (prosecutor’s notes containing an analysis of the outcome of prio | 2 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Herrick
green
2 sentences1997“The county prosecutor is a constitutional officer with discretion to decide whether to initiate criminal charges.” People v Herrick, 216 Mich App 594, 598 ; 550 NW2d 541 (1996). 1997“The county prosecutor is a constitutional officer with discretion to decide whether to initiate criminal charges.” People v Herrick, 216 Mich App 594, 598 ; 550 NW2d 541 (1996). | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Book v. National Labor Relations Board
green
2 sentences1991See Kent Corp v NLRB, 530 F2d 612, 623 (CA 5, 1976), cert den 429 US 920 ; 97 S Ct 316 ; 50 L Ed 2d 287 (1976); In re Grand Jury Investigation (United States), 599 F2d 1224, 1229 (CA 3, 1979). 1991See Kent Corp v NLRB, 530 F2d 612, 623 (CA 5, 1976), cert den 429 US 920 ; 97 S Ct 316 ; 50 L Ed 2d 287 (1976); In re Grand Jury Investigation (United States), 599 F2d 1224, 1229 (CA 3, 1979). | 2 | 1991–1991 |
Rice v. United States
green
2 sentences1991Emphasis added.] The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v Davis, 636 F2d 1028, 1040 (CA 5, 1981), cert den 454 US 862 (1981), summarized federal precedent as follows: It is admittedly difficult to reduce to a neat general formula the relationship between preparation of a document and possible litigation necessary to trigger the protection of the work product doctrine. 1991Emphasis added.] The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v Davis, 636 F2d 1028, 1040 (CA 5, 1981), cert den 454 US 862 (1981), summarized federal precedent as follows: It is admittedly difficult to reduce to a neat general formula the relationship between preparation of a document and possible litigation necessary to trigger the protection of the work product doctrine. | 2 | 1991–1991 |
Federal Trade Commission v. Grolier Inc.
green
2 sentences1991See Gomez v City of Nashua, 126 FRD 432, 434 (D NH, 1989); FTC v Grolier, 462 US 19, 25 ; 103 S Ct 2209, 2213 ; 76 L Ed 2d 387 (1983) (dictum); Chaney v Slack, 99 FRD 531, 533 (SD Ga, 1983); Galambus v Consolidated Freightways Corp, 64 FRD 468, 473 (ND Ind, 1974). 1991See Gomez v City of Nashua, 126 FRD 432, 434 (D NH, 1989); FTC v Grolier, 462 US 19, 25 ; 103 S Ct 2209, 2213 ; 76 L Ed 2d 387 (1983) (dictum); Chaney v Slack, 99 FRD 531, 533 (SD Ga, 1983); Galambus v Consolidated Freightways Corp, 64 FRD 468, 473 (ND Ind, 1974). | 2 | 1991–1991 |
United States v. Nobles
green
2 sentences1989In Nobles, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that the work product doctrine protects an investigator’s report from discovery, but the protection was waived when the defendant placed the investigator on the stand and sought to adduce his testimony. 1977Even if the facts could be stretched to bring this episode under the work product rule of United States v Nobles, 422 US 225 ; 95 S Ct 2160 ; 45 L Ed 2d 141 (1975), we can envision no prejudice to the *213 defendant arising from the ruling. | 2 | 1977–1989 |
| In Re Petition of Delaware green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Grubbs v. K Mart Corp. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Holtzman green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Franzel v. Kerr Manufacturing Co. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Szpak v. Inyang green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Kissel v. Nelson Packing Co. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Lawrence v. Bay Osteopathic Hospital, Inc green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Howe v. Detroit Free Press, Inc green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lutheran Social Services green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Cardinal Mooney High School v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'n green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Williams v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Bohannon v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Gross v. General Motors Corp. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Kelleher v. United States green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Ownby v. United States green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Paris green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| People v. Collie green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.