work product doctrine in Maryland

23 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2025 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Maryland 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.

Followed or applied (34)

Case	Followed	Cited
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Forma-Pack, Inc.green md · 1998 · cited in 13 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2000–2025 2 sentences 2025E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Forma-Pack, Inc., 351 Md. 396 , 409–10 (1998) (evaluating a party’s assertion of the work product privilege). ii. 2021Attorney Work-Product Doctrine The attorney work-product doctrine protects from disclosure documents “produced in anticipation of litigation or in rendition of legal services.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Forma-Pack, Inc., 351 Md. 396, 401 (1998). “[T]he touchstone of the work product doctrine [is] that the materials must have been created in preparation for trial.” Id. at 407 .	6	13
Blair v. Stategreen mdctspecapp · 2000 · cited in 4 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2002–2015 2 sentences 2015We recognized in Blair v. State that “[although the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine ‘appear to embrace the same concepts of confidentiality and zealous client advocacy, the work product doctrine is separate and distinct from the attorney-client privilege.’ ” 130 Md.App. 571, 605 , 747 A.2d 702 (2000) (quoting E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 Md. at 406 , 718 A.2d 1129 ); see also Pratt v. State, 39 Md.App. 442 , 446 n. 2, 387 A.2d 779 (1978) (“The work product doctrine ... is separate from the attorney-client privilege and serves to protect materials from discovery th 2015We recognized in Blair v. State that “[although the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine ‘appear to embrace the same concepts of confidentiality and zealous client advocacy, the work product doctrine is separate and distinct from the attorney-client privilege.’ ” 130 Md.App. 571, 605 , 747 A.2d 702 (2000) (quoting E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 Md. at 406 , 718 A.2d 1129 ); see also Pratt v. State, 39 Md.App. 442 , 446 n. 2, 387 A.2d 779 (1978) (“The work product doctrine ... is separate from the attorney-client privilege and serves to protect materials from discovery th	2	4
United States v. Noblesgreen scotus · 1975 · cited in 4 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1978–2013 2 sentences 2013See United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) (“The privilege derived from the work-product doctrine is not absolute. 2013See United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) (“The privilege derived from the work-product doctrine is not absolute.	2	4
Pratt v. Stategreen mdctspecapp · 1978 · cited in 3 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1998–2015 2 sentences 2015We recognized in Blair v. State that “[although the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine ‘appear to embrace the same concepts of confidentiality and zealous client advocacy, the work product doctrine is separate and distinct from the attorney-client privilege.’ ” 130 Md.App. 571, 605 , 747 A.2d 702 (2000) (quoting E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 Md. at 406 , 718 A.2d 1129 ); see also Pratt v. State, 39 Md.App. 442 , 446 n. 2, 387 A.2d 779 (1978) (“The work product doctrine ... is separate from the attorney-client privilege and serves to protect materials from discovery th 2015We recognized in Blair v. State that “[although the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine ‘appear to embrace the same concepts of confidentiality and zealous client advocacy, the work product doctrine is separate and distinct from the attorney-client privilege.’ ” 130 Md.App. 571, 605 , 747 A.2d 702 (2000) (quoting E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 Md. at 406 , 718 A.2d 1129 ); see also Pratt v. State, 39 Md.App. 442 , 446 n. 2, 387 A.2d 779 (1978) (“The work product doctrine ... is separate from the attorney-client privilege and serves to protect materials from discovery th	2	3
State v. Prattgreen md · 1979 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2000–2015 2 sentences 2015We recognized in Blair v. State that “[although the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine ‘appear to embrace the same concepts of confidentiality and zealous client advocacy, the work product doctrine is separate and distinct from the attorney-client privilege.’ ” 130 Md.App. 571, 605 , 747 A.2d 702 (2000) (quoting E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 Md. at 406 , 718 A.2d 1129 ); see also Pratt v. State, 39 Md.App. 442 , 446 n. 2, 387 A.2d 779 (1978) (“The work product doctrine ... is separate from the attorney-client privilege and serves to protect materials from discovery th 2015We recognized in Blair v. State that “[although the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine ‘appear to embrace the same concepts of confidentiality and zealous client advocacy, the work product doctrine is separate and distinct from the attorney-client privilege.’ ” 130 Md.App. 571, 605 , 747 A.2d 702 (2000) (quoting E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 Md. at 406 , 718 A.2d 1129 ); see also Pratt v. State, 39 Md.App. 442 , 446 n. 2, 387 A.2d 779 (1978) (“The work product doctrine ... is separate from the attorney-client privilege and serves to protect materials from discovery th	2	2
Leonen v. Johns-Manvillegreen njd · 1990 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1998–2015 2 sentences 2015E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 Md. at 406 , 718 A.2d 1129 (citing Leonen v. Johns-Manville, 135 F.R.D. 94, 96 (D.N.J.1990)). 1998Leonen v. Johns-Manville, 135 F.R.D. 94, 96 (D.N.J.1990).	2	2
Hickman v. Taylorgreen scotus · 1947 · cited in 3 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1977–1998 2 sentences 1998The United States Supreme Court’s decision in the seminal case of Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947), has guided the work product doctrine in both the state and federal courts. 1998The United States Supreme Court’s decision in the seminal case of Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947), has guided the work product doctrine in both the state and federal courts.	1	3
United States v. Morgangreen scotus · 1941 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2011–2025 2 sentences 2011See Ehrlich v. Grove, 396 Md. 550, 564-65 , 914 A.2d 783, 792-93 (2007) (permitting interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine where "[t]he Governor of the State of Maryland has asserted executive privilege ... attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine”); accord Johnson v. Clark, 199 Md.App. 305 , 21 A.3d 199 , 2011 WL 2183761 (2011) (accepting jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine of an appeal of a denial of a motion to quash a deposition and/or a motion for protective order on the grounds of executive privilege and the Morgan doctrine espoused in United 2011See Ehrlich v. Grove, 396 Md. 550, 564-65 , 914 A.2d 783, 792-93 (2007) (permitting interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine where "[t]he Governor of the State of Maryland has asserted executive privilege ... attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine”); accord Johnson v. Clark, 199 Md.App. 305 , 21 A.3d 199 , 2011 WL 2183761 (2011) (accepting jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine of an appeal of a denial of a motion to quash a deposition and/or a motion for protective order on the grounds of executive privilege and the Morgan doctrine espoused in United	1	2
Ehrlich v. Grovegreen md · 2007 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2011–2015 2 sentences 2015We recognize that where “an in camera inspection is an intrusion on ... attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, then, clearly, expanded in camera review is a more serious intrusion on those privileges because opposing counsel is being made privy to allegedly privileged information.” Ehrlich, 396 Md. at 571 , 914 A.2d 783 . 2015We recognize that where “an in camera inspection is an intrusion on ... attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, then, clearly, expanded in camera review is a more serious intrusion on those privileges because opposing counsel is being made privy to allegedly privileged information.” Ehrlich, 396 Md. at 571 , 914 A.2d 783 .	1	2
Catler v. Arent Fox, LLPgreen mdctspecapp · 2013 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015Similarly, the work product doctrine “protects from discovery the work of an attorney done in anticipation of litigation or in readiness for trial.” Catler, 212 Md.App. at 702 , 71 A.3d 155 (quoting E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 Md. at 407 , 718 A.2d 1129 ). 2015Similarly, the work product doctrine “protects from discovery the work of an attorney done in anticipation of litigation or in readiness for trial.” Catler, 212 Md.App. at 702 , 71 A.3d 155 (quoting E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 Md. at 407 , 718 A.2d 1129 ).	1	1
Lego v. Illinoisgreen scotus · 1988 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See People v. Lego, 116 Ill.2d 323 , 107 Ill.Dec. 647 , 507 N.E.2d 800, 805 (1987) (order compelling defense to produce tape recordings made by defendant’s investigators of State witnesses did not violate work product rule because “[t]he verbatim statements of witnesses obtained by the investigator here do not fall within the scope of protection afforded by the rule”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 902 , 109 S.Ct. 251 , 102 L.Ed.2d 240 (1988); State v. Culkin, 791 S.W.2d 803, 811 (Mo.Ct.App.1990) (rejecting claim that notes of interview between defense counsel and a State’s witness constituted work p 2013See People v. Lego, 116 Ill.2d 323 , 107 Ill.Dec. 647 , 507 N.E.2d 800, 805 (1987) (order compelling defense to produce tape recordings made by defendant’s investigators of State witnesses did not violate work product rule because “[t]he verbatim statements of witnesses obtained by the investigator here do not fall within the scope of protection afforded by the rule”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 902 , 109 S.Ct. 251 , 102 L.Ed.2d 240 (1988); State v. Culkin, 791 S.W.2d 803, 811 (Mo.Ct.App.1990) (rejecting claim that notes of interview between defense counsel and a State’s witness constituted work p	1	1
Keenan v. Californiagreen scotus · 1989 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013Like other qualified privileges, it may be waived.”); see, e.g., In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 625 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1011 , 109 S.Ct. 1655 , 104 L.Ed.2d 169 (1989) (information voluntarily disclosed constitutes an implied waiver of attorney work product protections).	1	1
People v. Perezgreen nysupct · 1996 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See People v. Lego, 116 Ill.2d 323 , 107 Ill.Dec. 647 , 507 N.E.2d 800, 805 (1987) (order compelling defense to produce tape recordings made by defendant’s investigators of State witnesses did not violate work product rule because “[t]he verbatim statements of witnesses obtained by the investigator here do not fall within the scope of protection afforded by the rule”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 902 , 109 S.Ct. 251 , 102 L.Ed.2d 240 (1988); State v. Culkin, 791 S.W.2d 803, 811 (Mo.Ct.App.1990) (rejecting claim that notes of interview between defense counsel and a State’s witness constituted work p 2013See People v. Lego, 116 Ill.2d 323 , 107 Ill.Dec. 647 , 507 N.E.2d 800, 805 (1987) (order compelling defense to produce tape recordings made by defendant’s investigators of State witnesses did not violate work product rule because “[t]he verbatim statements of witnesses obtained by the investigator here do not fall within the scope of protection afforded by the rule”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 902 , 109 S.Ct. 251 , 102 L.Ed.2d 240 (1988); State v. Culkin, 791 S.W.2d 803, 811 (Mo.Ct.App.1990) (rejecting claim that notes of interview between defense counsel and a State’s witness constituted work p	1	1
In Re Martin Marietta Corporation, United States of America v. William C. Pollardgreen ca4 · 1988 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013Like other qualified privileges, it may be waived.”); see, e.g., In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 625 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1011 , 109 S.Ct. 1655 , 104 L.Ed.2d 169 (1989) (information voluntarily disclosed constitutes an implied waiver of attorney work product protections).	1	1
State v. Culkingreen moctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013See People v. Lego, 116 Ill.2d 323 , 107 Ill.Dec. 647 , 507 N.E.2d 800, 805 (1987) (order compelling defense to produce tape recordings made by defendant’s investigators of State witnesses did not violate work product rule because “[t]he verbatim statements of witnesses obtained by the investigator here do not fall within the scope of protection afforded by the rule”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 902 , 109 S.Ct. 251 , 102 L.Ed.2d 240 (1988); State v. Culkin, 791 S.W.2d 803, 811 (Mo.Ct.App.1990) (rejecting claim that notes of interview between defense counsel and a State’s witness constituted work p	1	1
People v. Legogreen ill · 1987 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See People v. Lego, 116 Ill.2d 323 , 107 Ill.Dec. 647 , 507 N.E.2d 800, 805 (1987) (order compelling defense to produce tape recordings made by defendant’s investigators of State witnesses did not violate work product rule because “[t]he verbatim statements of witnesses obtained by the investigator here do not fall within the scope of protection afforded by the rule”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 902 , 109 S.Ct. 251 , 102 L.Ed.2d 240 (1988); State v. Culkin, 791 S.W.2d 803, 811 (Mo.Ct.App.1990) (rejecting claim that notes of interview between defense counsel and a State’s witness constituted work p 2013See People v. Lego, 116 Ill.2d 323 , 107 Ill.Dec. 647 , 507 N.E.2d 800, 805 (1987) (order compelling defense to produce tape recordings made by defendant’s investigators of State witnesses did not violate work product rule because “[t]he verbatim statements of witnesses obtained by the investigator here do not fall within the scope of protection afforded by the rule”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 902 , 109 S.Ct. 251 , 102 L.Ed.2d 240 (1988); State v. Culkin, 791 S.W.2d 803, 811 (Mo.Ct.App.1990) (rejecting claim that notes of interview between defense counsel and a State’s witness constituted work p	1	1
Duckworth v. Dudleygreen scotus · 1989 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013Like other qualified privileges, it may be waived.”); see, e.g., In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 625 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1011 , 109 S.Ct. 1655 , 104 L.Ed.2d 169 (1989) (information voluntarily disclosed constitutes an implied waiver of attorney work product protections).	1	1
Takahashi v. Livingston Union School Districtgreen scotus · 1989 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013Like other qualified privileges, it may be waived.”); see, e.g., In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 625 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1011 , 109 S.Ct. 1655 , 104 L.Ed.2d 169 (1989) (information voluntarily disclosed constitutes an implied waiver of attorney work product protections).	1	1
Johnson v. Clarkgreen mdctspecapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011See Ehrlich v. Grove, 396 Md. 550, 564-65 , 914 A.2d 783, 792-93 (2007) (permitting interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine where "[t]he Governor of the State of Maryland has asserted executive privilege ... attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine”); accord Johnson v. Clark, 199 Md.App. 305 , 21 A.3d 199 , 2011 WL 2183761 (2011) (accepting jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine of an appeal of a denial of a motion to quash a deposition and/or a motion for protective order on the grounds of executive privilege and the Morgan doctrine espoused in United 2011See Ehrlich v. Grove, 396 Md. 550, 564-65 , 914 A.2d 783, 792-93 (2007) (permitting interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine where "[t]he Governor of the State of Maryland has asserted executive privilege ... attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine”); accord Johnson v. Clark, 199 Md.App. 305 , 21 A.3d 199 , 2011 WL 2183761 (2011) (accepting jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine of an appeal of a denial of a motion to quash a deposition and/or a motion for protective order on the grounds of executive privilege and the Morgan doctrine espoused in United	1	1
In Re Doegreen ca4 · 1981 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000Doe v. United States (In re John Doe), 662 F.2d 1073, 1081 (4th Cir.1981) (stating also that “to effect a forfeiture of the work product protection by waiver, disclosure must occur in circumstances in which the attorney cannot reasonably expect to limit the future use of the otherwise protected material”), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982); see Nutramax Lab., 183 F.R.D. at 463-64 .	1	1
Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Twin Laboratories Inc.green mdd · 1998 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000Doe v. United States (In re John Doe), 662 F.2d 1073, 1081 (4th Cir.1981) (stating also that “to effect a forfeiture of the work product protection by waiver, disclosure must occur in circumstances in which the attorney cannot reasonably expect to limit the future use of the otherwise protected material”), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982); see Nutramax Lab., 183 F.R.D. at 463-64 .	1	1
Ronald K. Spivey v. Walter Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Centergreen ca5 · 1982 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999See Spivey v. Zant, 683 F.2d 881 (5th Cir.1982). 1999Id. at 885 .	1	1
Spectrum Systems International v. Chemical Bankgreen ny · 1991 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1
Radiant Burners, Inc. v. American Gas Associationgreen ilnd · 1962 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1
Couser v. Stategreen md · 1978 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1
Cranford v. Montgomery Countygreen md · 1984 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1
United States of America Bradley P. Whites, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service v. Joseph P. Bornsteingreen ca4 · 1992 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1
Shepherd v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1978 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1
City of Philadelphia v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.green paed · 1962 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1
Griffith v. Davisgreen cacd · 1995 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1
Ellerbe v. Marion County Lumber Co.green · 1914 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1
Riggins v. Stategreen md · 1915 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989	1	1
United States v. Wilfredo Alvarez Appeal of John A/K/A Jorge Martinezgreen ca3 · 1975 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978	1	1
Harrison v. Stategreen md · 1975 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (2)

Case	Negative	Cited
Billman v. Maryland Deposit Insurance Fundgreen md · 1988 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011See Ehrlich v. Grove, 396 Md. 550, 564-65 , 914 A.2d 783, 792-93 (2007) (permitting interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine where "[t]he Governor of the State of Maryland has asserted executive privilege ... attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine”); accord Johnson v. Clark, 199 Md.App. 305 , 21 A.3d 199 , 2011 WL 2183761 (2011) (accepting jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine of an appeal of a denial of a motion to quash a deposition and/or a motion for protective order on the grounds of executive privilege and the Morgan doctrine espoused in United 2011See Ehrlich v. Grove, 396 Md. 550, 564-65 , 914 A.2d 783, 792-93 (2007) (permitting interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine where "[t]he Governor of the State of Maryland has asserted executive privilege ... attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine”); accord Johnson v. Clark, 199 Md.App. 305 , 21 A.3d 199 , 2011 WL 2183761 (2011) (accepting jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine of an appeal of a denial of a motion to quash a deposition and/or a motion for protective order on the grounds of executive privilege and the Morgan doctrine espoused in United	1	1
Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.green scd · 1974 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000But see Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1146, 1200 (D.S.C.1974) (“[A]s the work product of the attorney becomes less a matter of creative legal thought and more a mere recognition of observed fact, the work product becomes increasingly susceptible to discovery.”).	1	1

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
Zook v. Pesce green md · 2014 2 sentences 2015The attorney-client privilege is “based upon the public policy that an individual in a free society should be encouraged to consult with his attorney whose function is to counsel and advise him and he should be free from apprehension of compelled disclosures by his legal advisor.” Zook, 438 Md. at 241 , 91 A.3d 1114 (quoting State v. Pratt, 284 Md. 516, 520 , 398 A.2d 421 (1979)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2015The attorney-client privilege is “based upon the public policy that an individual in a free society should be encouraged to consult with his attorney whose function is to counsel and advise him and he should be free from apprehension of compelled disclosures by his legal advisor.” Zook, 438 Md. at 241 , 91 A.3d 1114 (quoting State v. Pratt, 284 Md. 516, 520 , 398 A.2d 421 (1979)) (internal quotation marks omitted).	1	2015–2015
Kurstin v. Bromberg Rosenthal, LLP green mdctspecapp · 2010 2 sentences 2011See Ehrlich v. Grove, 396 Md. 550, 564-65 , 914 A.2d 783, 792-93 (2007) (permitting interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine where "[t]he Governor of the State of Maryland has asserted executive privilege ... attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine”); accord Johnson v. Clark, 199 Md.App. 305 , 21 A.3d 199 , 2011 WL 2183761 (2011) (accepting jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine of an appeal of a denial of a motion to quash a deposition and/or a motion for protective order on the grounds of executive privilege and the Morgan doctrine espoused in United 2011See Ehrlich v. Grove, 396 Md. 550, 564-65 , 914 A.2d 783, 792-93 (2007) (permitting interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine where "[t]he Governor of the State of Maryland has asserted executive privilege ... attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine”); accord Johnson v. Clark, 199 Md.App. 305 , 21 A.3d 199 , 2011 WL 2183761 (2011) (accepting jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine of an appeal of a denial of a motion to quash a deposition and/or a motion for protective order on the grounds of executive privilege and the Morgan doctrine espoused in United	1	2011–2011
Morris v. State green mdctspecapp · 1984 2 sentences 2000Neither fact nor opinion work product is ordinarily discoverable, but opinion work product, in particular, “is almost always completely protected form disclosure.” Forma-Pack, 351 Md. at 408 , 718 A.2d 1129 ; cf. Morris v. State, 59 Md.App. 659, 669 , 477 A.2d 1206 (1984) (stating that the work product doctrine “is intended to protect and to act as a limitation upon pretrial discovery of a lawyer’s strategies, legal theories and mental impressions”). 2000Neither fact nor opinion work product is ordinarily discoverable, but opinion work product, in particular, “is almost always completely protected form disclosure.” Forma-Pack, 351 Md. at 408 , 718 A.2d 1129 ; cf. Morris v. State, 59 Md.App. 659, 669 , 477 A.2d 1206 (1984) (stating that the work product doctrine “is intended to protect and to act as a limitation upon pretrial discovery of a lawyer’s strategies, legal theories and mental impressions”).	1	2000–2000
Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Ogilvie green scotus · 1982 1 sentence 2000Doe v. United States (In re John Doe), 662 F.2d 1073, 1081 (4th Cir.1981) (stating also that “to effect a forfeiture of the work product protection by waiver, disclosure must occur in circumstances in which the attorney cannot reasonably expect to limit the future use of the otherwise protected material”), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982); see Nutramax Lab., 183 F.R.D. at 463-64 .	1	2000–2000
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Vanskike green scotus · 1982 1 sentence 2000Doe v. United States (In re John Doe), 662 F.2d 1073, 1081 (4th Cir.1981) (stating also that “to effect a forfeiture of the work product protection by waiver, disclosure must occur in circumstances in which the attorney cannot reasonably expect to limit the future use of the otherwise protected material”), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982); see Nutramax Lab., 183 F.R.D. at 463-64 .	1	2000–2000
McLemore's Wholesale & Retail Stores, Inc. v. Payne green scotus · 1982 1 sentence 2000Doe v. United States (In re John Doe), 662 F.2d 1073, 1081 (4th Cir.1981) (stating also that “to effect a forfeiture of the work product protection by waiver, disclosure must occur in circumstances in which the attorney cannot reasonably expect to limit the future use of the otherwise protected material”), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982); see Nutramax Lab., 183 F.R.D. at 463-64 .	1	2000–2000
Shenk v. Berger green mdctspecapp · 1991	1	1999–1999
Upjohn Co. v. United States green scotus · 1981	1	1998–1998
People v. Lines green cal · 1975	1	1978–1978

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MD § Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 12-301 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 160 (1962–2026) TX 159 (1984–2026) FL 155 (1961–2026) OH 131 (1978–2026) PA 109 (1973–2026) IL 76 (1980–2025) WA 72 (1975–2025) MA 54 (1980–2025) NJ 52 (1950–2026) IN 46 (1976–2025) MO 43 (1977–2025) NC 40 (1990–2024) NY 40 (1964–2024) VA 37 (1970–2018) CT 34 (1969–2021) MI 34 (1975–2025) AL 26 (1987–2014) CO 26 (1981–2025) WV 25 (1984–2025) AZ 25 (1970–2025) TN 24 (1968–2024) MD 23 (1977–2025) IA 21 (1993–2024) MT 20 (1981–2018) RI 19 (1978–2025) DE 18 (1967–2025) GA 18 (1970–2021) KY 17 (1985–2024) NV 16 (1997–2019) LA 16 (1983–2025) OK 14 (1983–2026) DC 13 (1977–2023) MS 13 (1992–2023) NH 13 (1967–2021) NM 13 (1966–2025) ME 13 (2007–2019) WI 10 (1975–2003) UT 8 (1990–2023) HI 7 (1982–2023) AK 7 (1978–2018) KS 6 (1999–2019) ND 5 (1978–2022) MN 5 (1979–2024) OR 4 (1998–2023) AR 4 (1996–2009) SC 4 (1997–2019) VT 3 (1990–2023) SD 3 (1989–1999)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check