13 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine 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 |
|---|---|---|
SPRINGFIELD TERM. RY. v. Dept. of Transp.green2 sentences2018See Springfield Terminal , 2000 ME 126 , ¶ 16, 754 A.2d 353 . [¶ 23] Dubois and Fedder also argue that the work product privilege was waived because DACF collaborated on the drafts with DEP employees and assistant attorneys general representing DEP. 8 A *743 party waives the work product protection by disclosing the material "in a way inconsistent with keeping it from an adversary." U.S. v. Mass. Inst. of Tech ., 129 F.3d 681 , 687 (1st Cir. 1997). 2018See Springfield Terminal , 2000 ME 126 , ¶ 16, 754 A.2d 353 . [¶ 23] Dubois and Fedder also argue that the work product privilege was waived because DACF collaborated on the drafts with DEP employees and assistant attorneys general representing DEP. 8 A *743 party waives the work product protection by disclosing the material "in a way inconsistent with keeping it from an adversary." U.S. v. Mass. Inst. of Tech ., 129 F.3d 681 , 687 (1st Cir. 1997). | 3 | 13 |
United States v. MITgreen2 sentences2018See Springfield Terminal, 2000 ME 126, ¶ 16 , 754 A.2d 353 . [¶23] Dubois and Fedder also argue that the work product privilege was waived because DACF collaborated on the drafts with DEP employees and assistant attorneys general representing DEP.8 A party waives the work 8 As part of their argument that OAG waived any privilege, Dubois and Fedder claim that the administrative enforcement efforts constituted the federal crime of obstruction of justice and that 15 product protection by disclosing the material “in a way inconsistent with keeping it from an adversary.” U.S. v. Mass. Inst. of Tech 2018See Springfield Terminal , 2000 ME 126 , ¶ 16, 754 A.2d 353 . [¶ 23] Dubois and Fedder also argue that the work product privilege was waived because DACF collaborated on the drafts with DEP employees and assistant attorneys general representing DEP. 8 A *743 party waives the work product protection by disclosing the material "in a way inconsistent with keeping it from an adversary." U.S. v. Mass. Inst. of Tech ., 129 F.3d 681 , 687 (1st Cir. 1997). | 2 | 2 |
Harriman v. Maddocksgreen2 sentences2018"A document prepared in the regular course of business may be prepared in anticipation of litigation when the party's business is to prepare for litigation." Harriman v. Maddocks, 518 A.2d 1027, 1034 (Me. 1986) (holding that documents prepared by an insurance adjuster were protected by the work-product doctrine) (quotation omitted). 2017Id. | 1 | 2 |
Boccaleri v. Maine Medical Centergreen1 sentence2017However, it does not negate the fact that they were subjectively and objectively anticipating litigation based on the unfolding series of events between May 2015 and November 2015. 7 court finds these emails are not work product See Boccaleri v. Maine Medical Center, 534 A.2d 671, 673 (Me. 1987) (holding a letter was not protected by the work product doctrine when it "was not in direct response to any questions nor does it contain any discussion of trial strategy."). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Marcel Dubois v. Department of Environmental Protection
neutral
2 sentences2018Prot., 2017 ME 224, ¶ 17 , 174 A.3d 314 . 7 While it is clear that Dubois and Fedder contend that the material at issue is not work product in the first place, it is less clear that they are also contending that if that material is work product, they are nonetheless entitled to its access because of the conditional nature of the work product privilege as noted in the text. 2018Protection. 2017 ME 224 , ~ 17, 174 A.3d 314 (holding it was not error for the Superior Court to apply the work product privilege to emails concerning the drafting process and strategy for executing a search warrant); see also Dubois v. Dep't of Envtl. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
MacOmber v. MacQuinn-Tweedie
green
2 sentences2017As stated above, MDACF carries the "burden of demonstrating that the specific issue was actually decided in the earlier proceeding." Macomber, 2003 ME 121 , ,r 25, 834 A.2d 131 . 2017As stated above, MDACF carries the "burden of demonstrating that the specific issue was actually decided in the earlier proceeding." Macomber, 2003 ME 121 , ,r 25, 834 A.2d 131 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Textron Inc. & Subsidiaries
green
2 sentences2017Textron, 577 F.3d at 22-23 . 2017The majority stated that the work-product doctrine prevents disclosure of documents and other tangible things '"J]repared in anticipation of litigation or for trial."' Id. at 27 (quoting Fed. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Portland Water District v. Town of Standish
green
2 sentences2017(Def's' Br. at 15.) "Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, 'prevents the relitigation of factual issues already decided if the identical issue was determined by a prior final judgment, and 3 the party estopped had a fair opportunity and incentive to litigate the issue in a prior proceeding."' Portland Water Dist. v. Town of Standish, 2008 ME 23 , ,r 9, 940 A.2d 1097 (quoting Macomber v. MacQuinn-Tweedie, 2003 ME 121 , ,r 22, 834 A.2d 131 .) "A party asserting collateral estoppel has the burden of demonstrating that the specific issue was actually decided in the earlier proceeding." Macombe 2017(Def's' Br. at 15.) "Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, 'prevents the relitigation of factual issues already decided if the identical issue was determined by a prior final judgment, and 3 the party estopped had a fair opportunity and incentive to litigate the issue in a prior proceeding."' Portland Water Dist. v. Town of Standish, 2008 ME 23 , ,r 9, 940 A.2d 1097 (quoting Macomber v. MacQuinn-Tweedie, 2003 ME 121 , ,r 22, 834 A.2d 131 .) "A party asserting collateral estoppel has the burden of demonstrating that the specific issue was actually decided in the earlier proceeding." Macombe | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Michael A. Doyle v. Town of Falmouth
green
2 sentences2017Information may be redacted from an othe1wise public record to prevent disclosure when it is not subject to disclosure under FOAA. 4 The file for AP-15-28 is currently in the possession of the Law Court. 5 Doyle, 2014 ME 151 , ,r 9, 106 A.3d 1145 . i. Work Product Doctrine Respondents denied the petitioners' FOAA request asserting the work product exception to public records. 2017Information may be redacted from an othe1wise public record to prevent disclosure when it is not subject to disclosure under FOAA. 4 The file for AP-15-28 is currently in the possession of the Law Court. 5 Doyle, 2014 ME 151 , ,r 9, 106 A.3d 1145 . i. Work Product Doctrine Respondents denied the petitioners' FOAA request asserting the work product exception to public records. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Corey v. Norman, Hanson & DeTroy
green
2 sentences2015DISCUSSION A. Attorney-Client Privilege "The purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to encourage clients to make full disclosme to their attorneys and to protect not only the giving of professional advice to those who can act on it but also the giving of information to the lawyer to enable him to give sound and informed advice." Corey v. Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, 1999 ME 196 , ~ 18, 742 A.2d 933 (quotation marks and internal citations omitted). 2015DISCUSSION A. Attorney-Client Privilege "The purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to encourage clients to make full disclosme to their attorneys and to protect not only the giving of professional advice to those who can act on it but also the giving of information to the lawyer to enable him to give sound and informed advice." Corey v. Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, 1999 ME 196 , ~ 18, 742 A.2d 933 (quotation marks and internal citations omitted). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.