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.
11 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1932–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hewes v. Langstongreen2 sentences2014This Court has stated the work-product doctrine “protects an attorney’s thoughts, mental impressions, strategies, and analysis from discovery by opposing counsel.” Hewes v. Langston, 853 So.2d 1237, 1245 (Miss.2003) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 , 67 S.Ct. 385, 393 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)). “ ‘Not even the most liberal of discovery theories can justify unwarranted inquiries into the files and mental impressions of an attorney.’ ” Hewes 853 So.2d at 1245 (quoting Hickman, 329 U.S. at 510 , 67 S.Ct. 385 ). 2014This Court has stated the work-product doctrine “protects an attorney’s thoughts, mental impressions, strategies, and analysis from discovery by opposing counsel.” Hewes v. Langston, 853 So.2d 1237, 1245 (Miss.2003) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 , 67 S.Ct. 385, 393 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)). “ ‘Not even the most liberal of discovery theories can justify unwarranted inquiries into the files and mental impressions of an attorney.’ ” Hewes 853 So.2d at 1245 (quoting Hickman, 329 U.S. at 510 , 67 S.Ct. 385 ). | 2 | 2 |
Hansen v. Stategreen1 sentence1998Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 134 (Miss. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
Lee v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1991Since Loyd claimed the privilege to defense questions as well, and since the prosecuting attorney "was not a witness ... [who could] be tested by cross-examination," the Court found an offense to Douglas' Confrontation Clause rights and reversed. [9] See also, Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. at 541-42, 106 S.Ct. at 2062-63 , 90 L.Ed.2d at 526-27 , where Douglas' core holding is seemingly taken for granted. 1991Since Loyd claimed the privilege to defense questions as well, and since the prosecuting attorney "was not a witness ... [who could] be tested by cross-examination," the Court found an offense to Douglas' Confrontation Clause rights and reversed. [9] See also, Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. at 541-42, 106 S.Ct. at 2062-63 , 90 L.Ed.2d at 526-27 , where Douglas' core holding is seemingly taken for granted. | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Stategreen1 sentence1990Adams v. State, 537 So.2d 891, 893-95 (Miss. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States of America and Revenue Agents Clarence H. Isabel and John S. Reid of the Internal Revenue Service v. The El Paso Company
green
2 sentences2018United States v. El Paso Co. , 682 F.2d 530 , 541 (5th Cir. 1982) ; Interbake Foods, LLC , 637 F.3d at 502 ("When a party relies on a privilege log to assert these privileges, the log must 'as to each document ... set[ ] forth specific facts that, if credited, would suffice to establish each element of the privilege or immunity that is claimed.' ") (quoting Bowne, Inc. v. AmBase Corp. , 150 F.R.D. 465 , 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ). 2018United States v. El Paso Co. , 682 F.2d 530 , 541 (5th Cir. 1982) ; Interbake Foods, LLC , 637 F.3d at 502 ("When a party relies on a privilege log to assert these privileges, the log must 'as to each document ... set[ ] forth specific facts that, if credited, would suffice to establish each element of the privilege or immunity that is claimed.' ") (quoting Bowne, Inc. v. AmBase Corp. , 150 F.R.D. 465 , 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Bowne of New York City, Inc. v. AmBase Corp.
green
2 sentences2018United States v. El Paso Co. , 682 F.2d 530 , 541 (5th Cir. 1982) ; Interbake Foods, LLC , 637 F.3d at 502 ("When a party relies on a privilege log to assert these privileges, the log must 'as to each document ... set[ ] forth specific facts that, if credited, would suffice to establish each element of the privilege or immunity that is claimed.' ") (quoting Bowne, Inc. v. AmBase Corp. , 150 F.R.D. 465 , 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ). 2018United States v. El Paso Co. , 682 F.2d 530 , 541 (5th Cir. 1982) ; Interbake Foods, LLC , 637 F.3d at 502 ("When a party relies on a privilege log to assert these privileges, the log must 'as to each document ... set[ ] forth specific facts that, if credited, would suffice to establish each element of the privilege or immunity that is claimed.' ") (quoting Bowne, Inc. v. AmBase Corp. , 150 F.R.D. 465 , 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Hickman v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2014This Court has stated the work-product doctrine “protects an attorney’s thoughts, mental impressions, strategies, and analysis from discovery by opposing counsel.” Hewes v. Langston, 853 So.2d 1237, 1245 (Miss.2003) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 , 67 S.Ct. 385, 393 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)). “ ‘Not even the most liberal of discovery theories can justify unwarranted inquiries into the files and mental impressions of an attorney.’ ” Hewes 853 So.2d at 1245 (quoting Hickman, 329 U.S. at 510 , 67 S.Ct. 385 ). 2014This Court has stated the work-product doctrine “protects an attorney’s thoughts, mental impressions, strategies, and analysis from discovery by opposing counsel.” Hewes v. Langston, 853 So.2d 1237, 1245 (Miss.2003) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 , 67 S.Ct. 385, 393 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)). “ ‘Not even the most liberal of discovery theories can justify unwarranted inquiries into the files and mental impressions of an attorney.’ ” Hewes 853 So.2d at 1245 (quoting Hickman, 329 U.S. at 510 , 67 S.Ct. 385 ). | 2 | 2013–2014 |
Haynes v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2023Much like the process articulated by Claypool to determine the application of the statutory privileges, this Court established a process for determining whether a claim of privilege based on Rule 26(b)(3) should be sustained in Haynes, 597 So. 2d at 619 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Shaw v. Burchfield
green
1 sentence2006This privilege is not an exception, rather it "is merely a specific example of having `right or justifiable cause' to interfere with the relationship." Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Gardner v. Broderick
green
2 sentences1984See: Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273 , 88 S.Ct. 1913, p. 1085 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 : "Answers may be compelled regardless of the privilege if there is immunity from federal and state use of the compelled testimony or its fruits in connection with a criminal prosecution... ." Also, see Lefkowitz v. Turley, quoted supra; Confederation of Police v. Conlisk, quoted supra; and Sanitation Men Association, Inc. v. Commissioner of Sanitation, 426 F.2d 619 , 627 cert. denied 406 U.S. 961 , 92 S.Ct. 2055 , 32 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972). 1984See: Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273 , 88 S.Ct. 1913, p. 1085 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 : "Answers may be compelled regardless of the privilege if there is immunity from federal and state use of the compelled testimony or its fruits in connection with a criminal prosecution... ." Also, see Lefkowitz v. Turley, quoted supra; Confederation of Police v. Conlisk, quoted supra; and Sanitation Men Association, Inc. v. Commissioner of Sanitation, 426 F.2d 619 , 627 cert. denied 406 U.S. 961 , 92 S.Ct. 2055 , 32 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Uniformed Sanitation Men Association, Inc. v. Commissioner of Sanitation of the City of New York
green
1 sentence1984See: Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273 , 88 S.Ct. 1913, p. 1085 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 : "Answers may be compelled regardless of the privilege if there is immunity from federal and state use of the compelled testimony or its fruits in connection with a criminal prosecution... ." Also, see Lefkowitz v. Turley, quoted supra; Confederation of Police v. Conlisk, quoted supra; and Sanitation Men Association, Inc. v. Commissioner of Sanitation, 426 F.2d 619 , 627 cert. denied 406 U.S. 961 , 92 S.Ct. 2055 , 32 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Uniformed Sanitation Men Ass'n v. Commissioner of Sanitation
green
2 sentences1984See: Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273 , 88 S.Ct. 1913, p. 1085 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 : "Answers may be compelled regardless of the privilege if there is immunity from federal and state use of the compelled testimony or its fruits in connection with a criminal prosecution... ." Also, see Lefkowitz v. Turley, quoted supra; Confederation of Police v. Conlisk, quoted supra; and Sanitation Men Association, Inc. v. Commissioner of Sanitation, 426 F.2d 619 , 627 cert. denied 406 U.S. 961 , 92 S.Ct. 2055 , 32 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972). 1984See: Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273 , 88 S.Ct. 1913, p. 1085 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 : "Answers may be compelled regardless of the privilege if there is immunity from federal and state use of the compelled testimony or its fruits in connection with a criminal prosecution... ." Also, see Lefkowitz v. Turley, quoted supra; Confederation of Police v. Conlisk, quoted supra; and Sanitation Men Association, Inc. v. Commissioner of Sanitation, 426 F.2d 619 , 627 cert. denied 406 U.S. 961 , 92 S.Ct. 2055 , 32 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Maestri v. Board of Assessors
green
1 sentence1932It is essential to the character of a franchise that it should be a grant from the sovereign authority, and in this country, no franchise can be held, which is not derived from a law of the state." In Maestri v. Board of Assessors, 110 La. 526 , 34 So. 658, 661 , it is said: "To be a franchise the right possessed must be such as cannot be exercised without the express permission of the sovereign power — a privilege or immunity of a public nature which cannot be legally exercised without legislative grant. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.