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.
13 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 1967–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Hampshire 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 sentences2016See In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation, 859 F.2d at 1016 ; see also Nobles, 422 U.S. at 238-39 (determining that the work product doctrine protects documents drafted by non-attorneys at an attorney’s direction). 2016See Nobles, 422 U.S. at 238-39 (explaining that the work product doctrine extends to work performed by non-attorneys at the direction of attorneys). 3. | 4 | 5 |
State v. Zwickergreen2 sentences2020“At its core, the work-product doctrine shelters the mental processes of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he can analyze and prepare his client’s case.” State v. Zwicker, 151 N.H. 179, 191 (2004) (quotation omitted). 2020For the work product doctrine to apply, “[t]he lawyer’s work must have formed an essential step in the procurement of the data which the opponent seeks, and he must have performed duties normally attended to by attorneys.” Id. (quotation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Chagnongreen2 sentences2016Applying state law, the trial court found that the Gallagher declaration is subject to the work product doctrine because, although it “includes some purely factual information,” it “also contains [Gallagher’s] policy statements and opinions.” See State v. Chagnon, 139 N.H. 671, 676 (1995) (explaining, in the context of a criminal case, that “[witness statements that contain purely factual information should not be considered work product,” but “[i]f a report also includes notes of the investigator or attorney recording his or her analysis, mental process, impressions of what the witness said, 1995These arguments fail for the same reasons we today articulate in State v. Chagnon, 139 N.H.-, 662 A.2d 944 (1995). | 2 | 2 |
Hickman v. Taylorgreen2 sentences1995In Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), the United States Supreme Court recognized the work product doctrine, establishing a qualified privilege for certain materials prepared by an attorney acting for his client in anticipation of litigation. 1995In Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), the United States Supreme Court recognized the work product doctrine, establishing a qualified privilege for certain materials prepared by an attorney acting for his client in anticipation of litigation. | 1 | 3 |
Church of Scientology International v. United States Department of Justicegreen2 sentences2016See Norwood v. F.A.A., 993 F.2d 570, 576 (6th Cir. 1993) (acknowledging that the work product doctrine protects factual material); see also Church of Scientology Intern. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 30 F.3d 224 , 237 n.20 (1st Cir. 1994) (noting that “factual material contained within a document subject to the work product privilege often will be embraced within the privilege”). 2016See Norwood v. F.A.A., 993 F.2d 570, 576 (6th Cir. 1993) (acknowledging that the work product doctrine protects factual material); see also Church of Scientology Intern. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 30 F.3d 224 , 237 n.20 (1st Cir. 1994) (noting that “factual material contained within a document subject to the work product privilege often will be embraced within the privilege”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation. Petition of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committeegreen1 sentence2016See In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation, 859 F.2d at 1016 ; see also Nobles, 422 U.S. at 238-39 (determining that the work product doctrine protects documents drafted by non-attorneys at an attorney’s direction). | 1 | 1 |
Dan M. Norwood v. Federal Aviation Administrationgreen2 sentences2016See Norwood v. F.A.A., 993 F.2d 570, 576 (6th Cir. 1993) (acknowledging that the work product doctrine protects factual material); see also Church of Scientology Intern. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 30 F.3d 224 , 237 n.20 (1st Cir. 1994) (noting that “factual material contained within a document subject to the work product privilege often will be embraced within the privilege”). 2016See Norwood v. F.A.A., 993 F.2d 570, 576 (6th Cir. 1993) (acknowledging that the work product doctrine protects factual material); see also Church of Scientology Intern. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 30 F.3d 224 , 237 n.20 (1st Cir. 1994) (noting that “factual material contained within a document subject to the work product privilege often will be embraced within the privilege”). | 1 | 1 |
Gargiulo v. Baystate Health, Inc.green1 sentence2016See Gargiulo v. Baystate Health, Inc., 826 F. Supp. 2d 323, 325 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Aranson v. Schroedergreen1 sentence2004See Ammon, 140 N.H. at 370-71 ; Super. | 1 | 1 |
Hicks v. Stategreen1 sentence1995“Trial court discretion, rather than the rules of civil procedure, governs discovery in criminal cases.” Hicks v. State, 544 N.E.2d 500, 503 (Ind. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Yatesgreen1 sentence1995See State v. Yates, 765 P.2d 291, 296 (Wash. 1988) (interviews of prosecution witnesses are unlikely to contain “opinions, theories or conclusions” of defense counsel); People v. Boclair, 519 N.E.2d 437, 440 (Ill.) (“handwritten notes taken during an interview with a witness are not work product per se”), appeal dismissed, 484 U.S. 950 (1987); People v. Lego, 507 N.E.2d 800, 805 (Ill. 1987) (verbatim statements of witnesses obtained by investigator do not fall within the scope of protection afforded by the work product rule), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 902 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Legogreen1 sentence1995See State v. Yates, 765 P.2d 291, 296 (Wash. 1988) (interviews of prosecution witnesses are unlikely to contain “opinions, theories or conclusions” of defense counsel); People v. Boclair, 519 N.E.2d 437, 440 (Ill.) (“handwritten notes taken during an interview with a witness are not work product per se”), appeal dismissed, 484 U.S. 950 (1987); People v. Lego, 507 N.E.2d 800, 805 (Ill. 1987) (verbatim statements of witnesses obtained by investigator do not fall within the scope of protection afforded by the work product rule), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 902 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Boclairgreen1 sentence1995See State v. Yates, 765 P.2d 291, 296 (Wash. 1988) (interviews of prosecution witnesses are unlikely to contain “opinions, theories or conclusions” of defense counsel); People v. Boclair, 519 N.E.2d 437, 440 (Ill.) (“handwritten notes taken during an interview with a witness are not work product per se”), appeal dismissed, 484 U.S. 950 (1987); People v. Lego, 507 N.E.2d 800, 805 (Ill. 1987) (verbatim statements of witnesses obtained by investigator do not fall within the scope of protection afforded by the work product rule), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 902 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Hampshire. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Riddle Spring Realty Co. v. State
green
2 sentences1989Id. 1976Riddle Spring Realty Co. v. State, 107 N.H. 271 , 220 A.2d 751 (1966); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947); United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975). | 2 | 1976–1989 |
Professional Fire Fighters v. New Hampshire Local Government Center
green
1 sentence2021The SAU relies, in particular, upon New Hampshire Right to Life, 169 N.H. at 105-10 , and Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire v. New Hampshire Local Government Center, 163 N.H. 613 (2012). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
New Hampshire Right to Life & a. v. Director, New Hampshire Charitable Trusts Unit & a.
green
1 sentence2021The SAU relies, in particular, upon New Hampshire Right to Life, 169 N.H. at 105-10 , and Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire v. New Hampshire Local Government Center, 163 N.H. 613 (2012). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Dedrick
green
2 sentences1995The defendant argues that reports of interviews fall within the work product privilege pursuant to State v. Dedrick, 135 N.H. 502 , 607 A.2d 127 (1992). 1995The defendant argues that reports of interviews fall within the work product privilege pursuant to State v. Dedrick, 135 N.H. 502 , 607 A.2d 127 (1992). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Lego v. Illinois
green
1 sentence1995See State v. Yates, 765 P.2d 291, 296 (Wash. 1988) (interviews of prosecution witnesses are unlikely to contain “opinions, theories or conclusions” of defense counsel); People v. Boclair, 519 N.E.2d 437, 440 (Ill.) (“handwritten notes taken during an interview with a witness are not work product per se”), appeal dismissed, 484 U.S. 950 (1987); People v. Lego, 507 N.E.2d 800, 805 (Ill. 1987) (verbatim statements of witnesses obtained by investigator do not fall within the scope of protection afforded by the work product rule), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 902 (1988). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Hobbs v. Municipal Court
green
2 sentences1995Simply because the work product doctrine is applicable to criminal cases as well as civil cases “does not necessarily mean that the doctrine has exactly the same application in the criminal arena as it does in the civil arena.” Hobbs, 284 Cal. Rptr. at 670 . 1995Simply because the work product doctrine is applicable to criminal cases as well as civil cases “does not necessarily mean that the doctrine has exactly the same application in the criminal arena as it does in the civil arena.” Hobbs, 284 Cal. Rptr. at 670 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Parkview Associates v. City of New York
neutral
1 sentence1995See State v. Yates, 765 P.2d 291, 296 (Wash. 1988) (interviews of prosecution witnesses are unlikely to contain “opinions, theories or conclusions” of defense counsel); People v. Boclair, 519 N.E.2d 437, 440 (Ill.) (“handwritten notes taken during an interview with a witness are not work product per se”), appeal dismissed, 484 U.S. 950 (1987); People v. Lego, 507 N.E.2d 800, 805 (Ill. 1987) (verbatim statements of witnesses obtained by investigator do not fall within the scope of protection afforded by the work product rule), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 902 (1988). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence1992The trial court ruled that the prosecutor’s notes were protected by the work-product privilege, but ordered the prosecution “to divulge to the defendant any information received from those witnesses relative to or that might lead to exculpatory evidence,” consistent with the State’s obligation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.