Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nebraska 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re: General Motors Corporationgreen1 sentence2007See, also, In re General Motors Corp., 153 F.3d 714, 715 (8th Cir. 1998) (finding “extraordinary remedy of mandamus” appropriate because “district court’s order would otherwise destroy the confidentiality of the communications at issue”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re BANKAMERICA CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION Petition of Bank of America Corporationgreen1 sentence2007Federal courts find mandamus proper when a trial court has abused its discretion in ordering the disclosure of privileged materials, “‘[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.’ ” See In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation, 270 F.3d 639, 641 (8th Cir. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Greenwalt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2007See Greenwalt v. Wal-Mart Stores, 253 Neb. 32 , 567 N.W.2d 560 (1997). 2007See Greenwalt v. Wal-Mart Stores, 253 Neb. 32 , 567 N.W.2d 560 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Roedergreen2 sentences2006See State v. Roeder, 262 Neb. 951 , 636 N.W.2d 870 (2001). 2006See State v. Roeder, 262 Neb. 951 , 636 N.W.2d 870 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
Snowden v. Connaught Laboratories, Inc.green1 sentence1997The dilemmas faced by courts were succinctly addressed in Snowden by and Through Victor v. Connaught Lab., 137 F.R.D. 325, 333-34 (D. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings 88-9 (Mia). Appeal of Jerald Newton, John Doegreen1 sentence1997See, In re Grand Jury Proceedings 88-9 (MIA), 899 F.2d 1039 (11th Cir. 1990); Tornay v. U.S., 840 F.2d 1424 (9th Cir. 1988). | 1 | 1 |
Will v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1989The court said at 1031-32: In recent years we have repeatedly sought to make clear that in the absence of a certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b) or of a showing of “persistent disregard of the Rules of Civil Procedure,” Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 96 , 88 S.Ct. 269, 274 , 19 L.Ed.2d 305, 310 (1967), or of “a manifest abuse of discretion,” Baker v. United States Steel Corp., 492 F.2d 1074, 1077 (2d Cir. 1974), on the part of the district court, no jurisdictional basis exists for interlocutory review of pretrial discovery orders of the type here presented. 1989The court said at 1031-32: In recent years we have repeatedly sought to make clear that in the absence of a certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b) or of a showing of “persistent disregard of the Rules of Civil Procedure,” Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 96 , 88 S.Ct. 269, 274 , 19 L.Ed.2d 305, 310 (1967), or of “a manifest abuse of discretion,” Baker v. United States Steel Corp., 492 F.2d 1074, 1077 (2d Cir. 1974), on the part of the district court, no jurisdictional basis exists for interlocutory review of pretrial discovery orders of the type here presented. | 1 | 1 |
George P. Baker v. United States Steel Corporation, Edgewater Steel Companygreen1 sentence1989The court said at 1031-32: In recent years we have repeatedly sought to make clear that in the absence of a certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b) or of a showing of “persistent disregard of the Rules of Civil Procedure,” Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 96 , 88 S.Ct. 269, 274 , 19 L.Ed.2d 305, 310 (1967), or of “a manifest abuse of discretion,” Baker v. United States Steel Corp., 492 F.2d 1074, 1077 (2d Cir. 1974), on the part of the district court, no jurisdictional basis exists for interlocutory review of pretrial discovery orders of the type here presented. | 1 | 1 |
Garner v. Wolfinbargergreen2 sentences1979See, Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F. 2d 1093 (5th Cir., 1970), cert. den. 401 U. S. 974 , 91 S. Ct. 1191 , 28 L. 1979See, Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir., 1970), cert. den. 401 U.S. 974 , 91 S.Ct. 1191 , 28 L.Ed.2d 323 ; In re Transocean Tender Offer Securities Litigation, 78 F.R.D. 692 (N.D.Ill., 1978). | 1 | 1 |
Garner v. First American Life Insurancegreen2 sentences1979See, Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F. 2d 1093 (5th Cir., 1970), cert. den. 401 U. S. 974 , 91 S. Ct. 1191 , 28 L. 1979See, Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F. 2d 1093 (5th Cir., 1970), cert. den. 401 U. S. 974 , 91 S. Ct. 1191 , 28 L. | 1 | 1 |
Jahnke v. Stategreen2 sentences1979See Jahnke v. State, 68 Neb. 154 , 94 N.W. 158 (1903); Spaulding v. State, 61 Neb. 289 , 85 N.W. 80 (1901). 1979See Jahnke v. State, 68 Neb. 154 , 94 N.W. 158 (1903); Spaulding v. State, 61 Neb. 289 , 85 N.W. 80 (1901). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Great Hill Equity Partners IV, LP v. SIG Growth Equity Fund I, LLLP
green
1 sentence2020Under Delaware “General Corporation Law,” upon consum- mation of a merger, “all property, rights, privileges, powers, and franchises, and all and every other interest shall be thereafter as effectually the property of the surviving or resulting corporation.” 24 “[A]ll . . . privileges” necessarily encompasses an attorney-client privilege and “all property” necessarily encompasses documentation of all premerger communications pursuant to an attorney-client privilege, including those communications relating to the negotiation of the merger itself. 25 24 Del. Code tit. 8, § 259 (2020). 25 See Gre | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Medina-Liborio
green
1 sentence2013Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. MEDINA-LIBORIO 629 Cite as 285 Neb. 626 assertion of the attorney-client privilege, that he had advised Medina-Liborio that if convicted of the charges, he would be deported. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Stephen Tornay, Galene Tornay v. United States of America A.R. Demeter, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service
green
1 sentence1997See, In re Grand Jury Proceedings 88-9 (MIA), 899 F.2d 1039 (11th Cir. 1990); Tornay v. U.S., 840 F.2d 1424 (9th Cir. 1988). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
League v. Vanice
green
2 sentences1995However, this court has held in League v. Vanice, 221 Neb. 34 , 374 N.W.2d 849 (1985), that a litigant is not permitted to thrust his lack of knowledge into litigation as a foundation or condition necessary to sustain a claim against another while simultaneously retaining the attorney-client privilege to frustrate proof of knowledge negating the very foundation or condition necessary to prevail on the claim asserted. 1995However, this court has held in League v. Vanice, 221 Neb. 34 , 374 N.W.2d 849 (1985), that a litigant is not permitted to thrust his lack of knowledge into litigation as a foundation or condition necessary to sustain a claim against another while simultaneously retaining the attorney-client privilege to frustrate proof of knowledge negating the very foundation or condition necessary to prevail on the claim asserted. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Murray v. Stuckey's Inc.
green
1 sentence1995Murray v. Stuckey’s Inc., 153 F.R.D. 151 (N.D. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Schroeder v. DiPascal Cabinet Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence1991The sellers further state that the purchaser “acknowledged that [the letter] was withheld from discovery as subject to an attorney-client privilege.” Id. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee, a Corporation v. Insurance Company of North America. Appeal of Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee
green
2 sentences1990Co. of N.A., 721 F.2d 109 (3d Cir. 1983) (qualification of a witness to testify as an expert-engineer). 1990Co. of N.A., 721 F.2d 109 (3d Cir.1983) (qualification of a witness to testify as an expert-engineer). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Robert J. Alfonso v. Dr. John C. Lund
green
2 sentences1990In other jurisdictions, courts, construing a rule of evidence which is substantially similar, if not identical, to Rule 104(1), have expressed that the standard of “clearly erroneous” applies in an appellate review of a trial court’s factual determinations relative to a preliminary question of admissibility; for example, U.S. v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1989) (admissibility of conspiratorial statements); Alfonso v. Lund, 783 F.2d 958 (10th Cir. 1986) (competency of physician to testify as an expert in a particular area of medical practice); United States v. Wilson, 798 F.2d 509 (1st Ci 1990In other jurisdictions, courts, construing a rule of evidence which is substantially similar, if not identical, to Rule 104(1), have expressed that the standard of "clearly erroneous" applies in an appellate review of a trial court's factual determinations relative to a preliminary question of admissibility; for example, U.S. v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656 (10th Cir.1989) (admissibility of conspiratorial statements); Alfonso v. Lund, 783 F.2d 958 (10th Cir.1986) (competency of physician to testify as an expert in a particular area of medical practice); United States v. Wilson, 798 F.2d 509 (1st Cir. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
United States v. William H. Wilson, Jr.
green
2 sentences1990In other jurisdictions, courts, construing a rule of evidence which is substantially similar, if not identical, to Rule 104(1), have expressed that the standard of “clearly erroneous” applies in an appellate review of a trial court’s factual determinations relative to a preliminary question of admissibility; for example, U.S. v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1989) (admissibility of conspiratorial statements); Alfonso v. Lund, 783 F.2d 958 (10th Cir. 1986) (competency of physician to testify as an expert in a particular area of medical practice); United States v. Wilson, 798 F.2d 509 (1st Ci 1990In other jurisdictions, courts, construing a rule of evidence which is substantially similar, if not identical, to Rule 104(1), have expressed that the standard of "clearly erroneous" applies in an appellate review of a trial court's factual determinations relative to a preliminary question of admissibility; for example, U.S. v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656 (10th Cir.1989) (admissibility of conspiratorial statements); Alfonso v. Lund, 783 F.2d 958 (10th Cir.1986) (competency of physician to testify as an expert in a particular area of medical practice); United States v. Wilson, 798 F.2d 509 (1st Cir. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
United States v. Cardall
green
2 sentences1990In other jurisdictions, courts, construing a rule of evidence which is substantially similar, if not identical, to Rule 104(1), have expressed that the standard of “clearly erroneous” applies in an appellate review of a trial court’s factual determinations relative to a preliminary question of admissibility; for example, U.S. v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1989) (admissibility of conspiratorial statements); Alfonso v. Lund, 783 F.2d 958 (10th Cir. 1986) (competency of physician to testify as an expert in a particular area of medical practice); United States v. Wilson, 798 F.2d 509 (1st Ci 1990In other jurisdictions, courts, construing a rule of evidence which is substantially similar, if not identical, to Rule 104(1), have expressed that the standard of "clearly erroneous" applies in an appellate review of a trial court's factual determinations relative to a preliminary question of admissibility; for example, U.S. v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656 (10th Cir.1989) (admissibility of conspiratorial statements); Alfonso v. Lund, 783 F.2d 958 (10th Cir.1986) (competency of physician to testify as an expert in a particular area of medical practice); United States v. Wilson, 798 F.2d 509 (1st Cir. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Hussey
green
2 sentences1990In other jurisdictions, courts, construing a rule of evidence which is substantially similar, if not identical, to Rule 104(1), have expressed that the standard of “clearly erroneous” applies in an appellate review of a trial court’s factual determinations relative to a preliminary question of admissibility; for example, U.S. v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1989) (admissibility of conspiratorial statements); Alfonso v. Lund, 783 F.2d 958 (10th Cir. 1986) (competency of physician to testify as an expert in a particular area of medical practice); United States v. Wilson, 798 F.2d 509 (1st Ci 1990In other jurisdictions, courts, construing a rule of evidence which is substantially similar, if not identical, to Rule 104(1), have expressed that the standard of "clearly erroneous" applies in an appellate review of a trial court's factual determinations relative to a preliminary question of admissibility; for example, U.S. v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656 (10th Cir.1989) (admissibility of conspiratorial statements); Alfonso v. Lund, 783 F.2d 958 (10th Cir.1986) (competency of physician to testify as an expert in a particular area of medical practice); United States v. Wilson, 798 F.2d 509 (1st Cir. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Xerox Corp. v. SCM Corp.
green
1 sentence1989In Xerox Corp. v. SCM Corp., 534 F.2d 1031 (2d Cir. 1976), Xerox attempted to appeal from discovery orders on the ground that the information sought was privileged from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
In re Transocean Tender Offer Securities Litigation
green
1 sentence1979See, Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir., 1970), cert. den. 401 U.S. 974 , 91 S.Ct. 1191 , 28 L.Ed.2d 323 ; In re Transocean Tender Offer Securities Litigation, 78 F.R.D. 692 (N.D.Ill., 1978). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Spaulding v. State
neutral
2 sentences1979See Jahnke v. State, 68 Neb. 154 , 94 N.W. 158 (1903); Spaulding v. State, 61 Neb. 289 , 85 N.W. 80 (1901). 1979See Jahnke v. State, 68 Neb. 154 , 94 N.W. 158 (1903); Spaulding v. State, 61 Neb. 289 , 85 N.W. 80 (1901). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.