20 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Montana 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Noblesgreen2 sentences2013Work-Product Privilege ¶37 Ugalde argues that ‘[Dr.] Dale’s disclosures violated work-product privilege, resulting in unfair and irremediable prejudice to her case.” The work-product doctrine protects against the disclosure of ‘the mental processes of an attorney, providing a privileged area within which [the attorney] can analyze and prepare [a] client’s case.” State v. Miller, 231 Mont. 497, 513 , 757 P.2d 1275, 1285 (1988) (citing U.S. v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 , 95 S. Ct. 2160, 2170 (1975)). ‘The reality of our legal system demands that the embraces of the protection also extend to agen 2013Work-Product Privilege ¶37 Ugalde argues that ‘[Dr.] Dale’s disclosures violated work-product privilege, resulting in unfair and irremediable prejudice to her case.” The work-product doctrine protects against the disclosure of ‘the mental processes of an attorney, providing a privileged area within which [the attorney] can analyze and prepare [a] client’s case.” State v. Miller, 231 Mont. 497, 513 , 757 P.2d 1275, 1285 (1988) (citing U.S. v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 , 95 S. Ct. 2160, 2170 (1975)). ‘The reality of our legal system demands that the embraces of the protection also extend to agen | 2 | 4 |
Hickman v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2012By contrast, the work product doctrine serves the adversarial process directly ‘by enabling attorneys to prepare cases without fear that their work product will be used against their clients.” Westinghouse, 951 F.2d at 1428 (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 , 67 S. Ct. 385, 393-94 (1947)). 2012By contrast, the work product doctrine serves the adversarial process directly ‘by enabling attorneys to prepare cases without fear that their work product will be used against their clients.” Westinghouse, 951 F.2d at 1428 (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 , 67 S. Ct. 385, 393-94 (1947)). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Millergreen2 sentences2013Work-Product Privilege ¶37 Ugalde argues that ‘[Dr.] Dale’s disclosures violated work-product privilege, resulting in unfair and irremediable prejudice to her case.” The work-product doctrine protects against the disclosure of ‘the mental processes of an attorney, providing a privileged area within which [the attorney] can analyze and prepare [a] client’s case.” State v. Miller, 231 Mont. 497, 513 , 757 P.2d 1275, 1285 (1988) (citing U.S. v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 , 95 S. Ct. 2160, 2170 (1975)). ‘The reality of our legal system demands that the embraces of the protection also extend to agen 2013Work-Product Privilege ¶37 Ugalde argues that ‘[Dr.] Dale’s disclosures violated work-product privilege, resulting in unfair and irremediable prejudice to her case.” The work-product doctrine protects against the disclosure of ‘the mental processes of an attorney, providing a privileged area within which [the attorney] can analyze and prepare [a] client’s case.” State v. Miller, 231 Mont. 497, 513 , 757 P.2d 1275, 1285 (1988) (citing U.S. v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 , 95 S. Ct. 2160, 2170 (1975)). ‘The reality of our legal system demands that the embraces of the protection also extend to agen | 1 | 1 |
Cantrell v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2013Cantrell v. Henderson, 221 Mont. 201, 208 , 718 P.2d 318, 322 (1986). 2013Cantrell v. Henderson, 221 Mont. 201, 208 , 718 P.2d 318, 322 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Grand Jury Subpoenagreen2 sentences2012“Common sense suggests that there can be no joint defense agreement when there is no joint defense to pursue.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 274 F.3d 563, 575 (1st Cir. 2001). ¶29 The District Court did not apply the correct legal standard to the work product analysis, but it reached the proper conclusion. 2012Given the law expressly excluding Roscoe from participation in and liability for the claim, there could be no basis for either a confidentiality agreement or assurances of confidentiality. ‘Common sense suggests that there can be no joint defense agreement when there is no joint defense to pursue.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 274 F.3d 563, 575 (1st Cir. 2001). ¶29 The District Court did not apply the correct legal standard to the work product analysis, but it reached the proper conclusion. | 1 | 1 |
Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. The Republic Of The Philippinesgreen2 sentences2012By contrast, the work product doctrine serves the adversarial process directly “by enabling attorneys to prepare cases without fear that their work product will be used against their clients.” Westinghouse, 951 F.2d at 1428 (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 , 67 S. Ct. 385, 393-94 (1947)). 2012By contrast, the work product doctrine serves the adversarial process directly ‘by enabling attorneys to prepare cases without fear that their work product will be used against their clients.” Westinghouse, 951 F.2d at 1428 (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 , 67 S. Ct. 385, 393-94 (1947)). | 1 | 1 |
Boettcher v. Montana Guaranty Fundgreen2 sentences2008See Boettcher v. Montana Guaranty Fund, 2007 MT 69, ¶ 14 , 336 Mont. 393, ¶ 14 , 154 P.3d 629, ¶ 14 . 10 Of course, we recognize that some portions of an insurer’s records may be inadmissible pursuant to overriding rules regarding the work-product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege. 2008See Boettcher v. Montana Guaranty Fund, 2007 MT 69, ¶ 14 , 336 Mont. 393, ¶ 14 , 154 P.3d 629, ¶ 14 . 10 Of course, we recognize that some portions of an insurer’s records may be inadmissible pursuant to overriding rules regarding the work-product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. MITgreen1 sentence2000On cross-appeal, the IRS argued that the district court erred in concluding that the three minutes contained privileged material. ¶60 The court in Mass. Inst. of Technology concluded that “decisions do tend to mark out, although not with perfect consistency, a small circle of‘others’ with whom information may be shared without loss of the privilege (e.g., secretaries, interpreters, counsel for a cooperating co-defendant, a parent present when a child consults a lawyer).” Mass. Inst. of Technology, 129 F.3d at 684. | 1 | 1 |
Admiral Insurance Company v. United States District Courtgreen2 sentences1989As Professor Saltzburg explained: “ ‘The principal difference between the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, in terms of the protections each provides, is that the privilege cannot be overcome by a showing of need, whereas a showing of need may justify discovery of an attorney’s work product.’ Saltzburg, Corporate and Related Attorney-Client Privilege: A Suggested Approach, 12 Hofstra, L.Rev. 279, 299 (1984).” Admiral Ins., 881 F.2d at 1494-95. * * * “The attorney-client privilege, like all other evidentiary privileges, may obstruct a party’s access to the truth. 1989As Professor Saltzburg explained: “ ‘The principal difference between the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, in terms of the protections each provides, is that the privilege cannot be overcome by a showing of need, whereas a showing of need may justify discovery of an attorney’s work product.’ Saltzburg, Corporate and Related Attorney-Client Privilege: A Suggested Approach, 12 Hofstra, L.Rev. 279, 299 (1984).” Admiral Ins., 881 F.2d at 1494-95. * * * “The attorney-client privilege, like all other evidentiary privileges, may obstruct a party’s access to the truth. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kuiper v. District Court of the Eighth Judicial District
green
2 sentences2013The core purpose of the work product doctrine is to “ ‘shelter[ ] the mental processes of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he can analyze and prepare his client’s case.’ ”Palmer by Diacon, 261 Mont. at 116 , 861 P.2d at 910 (quoting U.S. v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 , 95 S. Ct. 2160, 2170 (1975)). ¶45 In Kuiper , we held that work product protects ‘impressions [of an attorney] rendered during the investigation of a claim where no litigation is in progress.” 193 Mont, at 465 , 632 P.2d at 701 . 2013The core purpose of the work product doctrine is to “ ‘shelter[ ] the mental processes of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he can analyze and prepare his client’s case.’ ”Palmer by Diacon, 261 Mont. at 116 , 861 P.2d at 910 (quoting U.S. v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 , 95 S. Ct. 2160, 2170 (1975)). ¶45 In Kuiper , we held that work product protects ‘impressions [of an attorney] rendered during the investigation of a claim where no litigation is in progress.” 193 Mont, at 465 , 632 P.2d at 701 . | 5 | 1986–2013 |
Palmer v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
green
2 sentences2013The core purpose of the work product doctrine is to “ ‘shelter[ ] the mental processes of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he can analyze and prepare his client’s case.’ ”Palmer by Diacon, 261 Mont. at 116 , 861 P.2d at 910 (quoting U.S. v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 , 95 S. Ct. 2160, 2170 (1975)). ¶45 In Kuiper , we held that work product protects ‘impressions [of an attorney] rendered during the investigation of a claim where no litigation is in progress.” 193 Mont, at 465 , 632 P.2d at 701 . 2013The core purpose of the work product doctrine is to “ ‘shelter[ ] the mental processes of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he can analyze and prepare his client’s case.’ ”Palmer by Diacon, 261 Mont. at 116 , 861 P.2d at 910 (quoting U.S. v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 , 95 S. Ct. 2160, 2170 (1975)). ¶45 In Kuiper , we held that work product protects ‘impressions [of an attorney] rendered during the investigation of a claim where no litigation is in progress.” 193 Mont, at 465 , 632 P.2d at 701 . | 3 | 2012–2018 |
Martin v. Paunovich
green
2 sentences2010Jur. 2d Depositions and Discovery § 45 (2002) (citing Martin v. Paunovich, 632 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 5th Dist. 2010Jur. 2d Depositions and Discovery § 45 (2002) (citing Martin v. Paunovich, 632 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 5th Dist. | 3 | 2010–2010 |
Huether v. District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District of Montana
green
2 sentences2010Dist., 2000 MT 158, ¶ 22 , 300 Mont. 212 , 4 P.3d 1193 . ¶37 Equally unpersuasive is Tacke’s argument that the work-product doctrine also prohibits the use of billing statements to support an attorneys’ fees claim. 2010Dist., 2000 MT 158, ¶ 22 , 300 Mont. 212 , 4 P.3d 1193 . ¶37 Equally unpersuasive is Tacke’s argument that the work-product doctrine also prohibits the use of billing statements to support an attorneys’ fees claim. | 3 | 2010–2010 |
In Re Department Of Investigation Of The City Of New York
green
1 sentence2006In re Dept. of Investigation of City of New York (2d Cir. 1988), 856 F.2d 481, 484 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Jaap v. District Court of Eighth Judicial Dist.
green
2 sentences1997In a second case, Jaap v. District Court (1981), 191 Mont. 319 , 623 P.2d 1389 , this Court granted a writ because the district court had exceeded its authority by allowing defendant’s attorney to privately interview plaintiff’s physicians. 1997In a second case, Jaap v. District Court (1981), 191 Mont. 319 , 623 P.2d 1389 , this Court granted a writ because the district court had exceeded its authority by allowing defendant’s attorney to privately interview plaintiff’s physicians. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Handgards, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson
green
2 sentences1993In discussing exceptions to the work product doctrine, the Ninth Circuit, in Holmgren , relied on Handgards, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson (N.D.Cal. 1976), 413 F. Supp. 926 . 1993In discussing exceptions to the work product doctrine, the Ninth Circuit, in Holmgren , relied on Handgards, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson (N.D.Cal. 1976), 413 F. Supp. 926 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State Ex Rel. Carkulis v. District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District
green
2 sentences1990D. (1988), 229 Mont. 265 , 746 P.2d 604 , wherein we upheld the validity of § 46-15-323, MCA, both against a constitutional challenge and a claim that it violated the work product doctrine. 1990D. (1988), 229 Mont. 265 , 746 P.2d 604 , wherein we upheld the validity of § 46-15-323, MCA, both against a constitutional challenge and a claim that it violated the work product doctrine. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Williams v. Florida
green
2 sentences1990In Carkulis, we began by noting the rationale stated in Williams v. Florida (1970), 399 U.S. 78 , 90 S.Ct. 1893 , 26 L.Ed.2d 446 , as follows: “The United States Supreme Court in Williams v. Florida (1970), 399 U.S. 78 , 90 S.Ct. 1893 , 26 L.Ed.2d 446 , upheld a state statute requiring the disclosure of an alibi defense and alibi witnesses to the state prior to trial as not violating the federal right against self-incrimination. 1990In Carkulis, we began by noting the rationale stated in Williams v. Florida (1970), 399 U.S. 78 , 90 S.Ct. 1893 , 26 L.Ed.2d 446 , as follows: “The United States Supreme Court in Williams v. Florida (1970), 399 U.S. 78 , 90 S.Ct. 1893 , 26 L.Ed.2d 446 , upheld a state statute requiring the disclosure of an alibi defense and alibi witnesses to the state prior to trial as not violating the federal right against self-incrimination. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
In Re Murphy
green
2 sentences1981The question of whether “terminated litigation” is contemplated by the work product rule, was determined in In re Murphy (8th Cir. 1977), 560 F.2d 326 . 1981The question of whether “terminated litigation” is contemplated by the work product rule, was determined in In re Murphy (8th Cir. 1977), 560 F.2d 326 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.