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.
10 Maryland opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2021 2 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Forma-Pack, Inc.green2 sentences2021The 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). 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 . | 2 | 3 |
Cranford v. Montgomery Countygreen2 sentences2002See Cranford v. Montgomery County, 300 Md. 759, 773 , 481 A.2d 221, 228 (1984). 2001The Cranford Court stated: “Cases decided under FOIA (b)(5) indicate that the agency memoranda exemption embraces various privileges____ By analogy to FOIA, [MPIA § 618(b)] also includes the attorney work product privilege.” Id. at 772-773, 481 A.2d 221 . | 2 | 2 |
Federal Trade Commission v. Grolier Inc.green2 sentences2001The Court also cited F.T.C. v. Grolier, Inc., 462 U.S. 19 , 103 S.Ct. 2209 , 76 L.Ed.2d 387 (1983), for the proposition that the privilege continues after litigation ends. 2001The Court also cited F.T.C. v. Grolier, Inc., 462 U.S. 19 , 103 S.Ct. 2209 , 76 L.Ed.2d 387 (1983), for the proposition that the privilege continues after litigation ends. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Noblesgreen2 sentences2013See 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. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Warnergreen2 sentences2003That constitutional right *521 is violated when the attorney-client privilege of a person confined pending a trial on criminal charges is “undermined by state agents.” State v. Warner, 150 Ariz. 123 , 722 P.2d 291, 295 (1986). 2003That constitutional right *521 is violated when the attorney-client privilege of a person confined pending a trial on criminal charges is “undermined by state agents.” State v. Warner, 150 Ariz. 123 , 722 P.2d 291, 295 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Federal Open Market Committee of Federal Reserve System v. Merrillgreen2 sentences1984See FTC v. Grolier Inc., 462 U.S. 19 , 103 S.Ct. 2209 , 76 L.Ed.2d 387 (1983) (privilege continues for FOIA purposes after litigation ends); Federal Open Market Committee v. Merrill, 443 U.S. 340, 355 , 99 S.Ct. 2800, 2809 , 61 L.Ed.2d 587, 600 (1979); NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., supra (memoranda of NLRB General Counsel to Regional Directors directing filing of unfair labor practice complaints excepted by Exemption 5). 1984See FTC v. Grolier Inc., 462 U.S. 19 , 103 S.Ct. 2209 , 76 L.Ed.2d 387 (1983) (privilege continues for FOIA purposes after litigation ends); Federal Open Market Committee v. Merrill, 443 U.S. 340, 355 , 99 S.Ct. 2800, 2809 , 61 L.Ed.2d 587, 600 (1979); NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., supra (memoranda of NLRB General Counsel to Regional Directors directing filing of unfair labor practice complaints excepted by Exemption 5). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morris v. State
green
2 sentences2013It was never intended to be an evidentiary privilege.” Morris v. State, 59 Md.App. 659, 669 , 477 A.2d 1206 (1984). 2013It was never intended to be an evidentiary privilege.” Morris v. State, 59 Md.App. 659, 669 , 477 A.2d 1206 (1984). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Blair v. State
green
2 sentences2013The attorney work product doctrine “protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation from disclosure.” Blair v. State, 130 Md.App. 571, 607 , 747 A.2d 702 (2000). 2013The attorney work product doctrine “protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation from disclosure.” Blair v. State, 130 Md.App. 571, 607 , 747 A.2d 702 (2000). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re Doe
green
1 sentence2001Appellant next asserts that Ms. McCafferty “waived the [attorney work product] privilege by sharing her thoughts and work product without ensuring its non-dissemination by the recipients.” Citing In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073 , 1081 (4th Cir.Md.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982), appellant contends that “nothing on the face of those documents” indicates McCafferty sought to limit the dissemination of those documents, and, therefore, he reasons that the appellee waived its right to claim the attorney work product privilege. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Ogilvie
green
1 sentence2001Appellant next asserts that Ms. McCafferty “waived the [attorney work product] privilege by sharing her thoughts and work product without ensuring its non-dissemination by the recipients.” Citing In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073 , 1081 (4th Cir.Md.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982), appellant contends that “nothing on the face of those documents” indicates McCafferty sought to limit the dissemination of those documents, and, therefore, he reasons that the appellee waived its right to claim the attorney work product privilege. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
McLemore's Wholesale & Retail Stores, Inc. v. Payne
green
1 sentence2001Appellant next asserts that Ms. McCafferty “waived the [attorney work product] privilege by sharing her thoughts and work product without ensuring its non-dissemination by the recipients.” Citing In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073 , 1081 (4th Cir.Md.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982), appellant contends that “nothing on the face of those documents” indicates McCafferty sought to limit the dissemination of those documents, and, therefore, he reasons that the appellee waived its right to claim the attorney work product privilege. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Vanskike
green
1 sentence2001Appellant next asserts that Ms. McCafferty “waived the [attorney work product] privilege by sharing her thoughts and work product without ensuring its non-dissemination by the recipients.” Citing In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073 , 1081 (4th Cir.Md.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982), appellant contends that “nothing on the face of those documents” indicates McCafferty sought to limit the dissemination of those documents, and, therefore, he reasons that the appellee waived its right to claim the attorney work product privilege. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Mayor of Baltimore v. Burke
green
1 sentence1996Burke , 67 Md. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Hall v. State
neutral
2 sentences1984Hall v. State, 36 Md.App. 362, 368 , 373 A.2d 1250 (1977). 1984Hall v. State, 36 Md.App. 362, 368 , 373 A.2d 1250 (1977). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.