litigation hearing (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

litigation hearing in North Carolina

10 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2021 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
Burton v. NCNB Nat. Bank of North Carolinagreen
ncctapp · 1987 · cited in 4 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021
2 sentences

2021“Our courts have held that statements are ‘made in due course of a judicial proceeding’ if they are submitted to the court presiding over litigation or to the government agency presiding over an administrative hearing and are relevant or pertinent to the litigation or hearing.” Burton v. NCNB Nat’l Bank of N.C., 85 N.C.

2021“Our courts have held that statements are ‘made in due course of a judicial proceeding’ if they are submitted to the court presiding over litigation or to the government agency presiding over an administrative hearing and are relevant or pertinent to the litigation or hearing.” Burton v. NCNB Nat’l Bank of N.C., 85 N.C.

44
Willis v. Duke Power Co.green
· 1976 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2009–2012
2 sentences

2012Willis v. Power Co., 291 N.C. 19, 35 , 229 S.E.2d 191, 201 (1976) (citations omitted). “[N]o discovery whatsoever of [work product containing] the ‘mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party’ concerning the litigation at bar ... is permitted under [N.C.R.

2012Willis v. Power Co., 291 N.C. 19, 35 , 229 S.E.2d 191, 201 (1976) (citations omitted). “[N]o discovery whatsoever of [work product containing] the ‘mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party’ concerning the litigation at bar ... is permitted under [N.C.R.

22
Sullivan v. Warminster Townshipgreen
paed · 2011 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018The prevailing rule is that “the extrajudicial disclosure of attorney-client communications, not thereafter used by the client to gain adversarial advantage in judicial proceedings, cannot work an implied waiver of all confidential communications on the same subject matter.” XYZ Corp. v. United States (In re Keeper of the Records), 348 F.3d 16 , 24 (1st Cir. 2003); see also Wi-LAN, 684 F.3d at 1373 ; In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d at 102 ; Sullivan v. Warminster Twp., 274 F.R.D. 147, 154 (E.D.

11
In Re Claus Von Bulow, Martha Von Bulow, by Her Next Friends Alexander Auersperg, and Annie Laurie Auersperg-Kneissl v. Claus Von Bulowgreen
ca2 · 1987 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
2 sentences

2018As the Second Circuit explained, “disclosures made in public rather than in court—even if selective—create no risk of legal prejudice until put at issue in the litigation by the privilege-holder.” In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 103 (2d Cir. 1987).

2018The prevailing rule is that “the extrajudicial disclosure of attorney-client communications, not thereafter used by the client to gain adversarial advantage in judicial proceedings, cannot work an implied waiver of all confidential communications on the same subject matter.” XYZ Corp. v. United States (In re Keeper of the Records), 348 F.3d 16 , 24 (1st Cir. 2003); see also Wi-LAN, 684 F.3d at 1373 ; In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d at 102 ; Sullivan v. Warminster Twp., 274 F.R.D. 147, 154 (E.D.

11
United States v. Smithgreen
ca11 · 2012 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018The prevailing rule is that “the extrajudicial disclosure of attorney-client communications, not thereafter used by the client to gain adversarial advantage in judicial proceedings, cannot work an implied waiver of all confidential communications on the same subject matter.” XYZ Corp. v. United States (In re Keeper of the Records), 348 F.3d 16 , 24 (1st Cir. 2003); see also Wi-LAN, 684 F.3d at 1373 ; In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d at 102 ; Sullivan v. Warminster Twp., 274 F.R.D. 147, 154 (E.D.

11
LaFollette v. Herrongreen
tned · 1962 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004We are not persuaded that a final judgment is a sine qua non to invocation of the bar; there is nothing in the rule limning the term "judgment." cf. La Follette v. Herron, 211 F.Supp. 919, 921 (E.D.Tenn.1962) The insured had no day in court on the question of negligence of [defendant].

2004We are not persuaded that a final judgment is a sine qua non to invocation of the bar; there is nothing in the rule limning the term “judgment.” cf. La Follette v. Herron, 211 F.Supp. 919, 921 (E.D.

11
Scott v. Statesville Plywood & Veneer Co.green
nc · 1954 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
2 sentences

1987See Scott v. Veneer Co., 240 N.C. 73 , 81 S.E. 2d 146 (1954) (statement made in a judicial pleading); Jarman v. Offutt, 239 N.C. 468 , 80 S.E. 2d 248 (1954) (a lunacy hearing is a judicial proceeding within the rule); Williams v. Congdon, 43 N.C.

1987See Scott v. Veneer Co., 240 N.C. 73 , 81 S.E. 2d 146 (1954) (statement made in a judicial pleading); Jarman v. Offutt, 239 N.C. 468 , 80 S.E. 2d 248 (1954) (a lunacy hearing is a judicial proceeding within the rule); Williams v. Congdon, 43 N.C.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Unknown case name green
ca1 · 2003
1 sentence

2018The prevailing rule is that “the extrajudicial disclosure of attorney-client communications, not thereafter used by the client to gain adversarial advantage in judicial proceedings, cannot work an implied waiver of all confidential communications on the same subject matter.” XYZ Corp. v. United States (In re Keeper of the Records), 348 F.3d 16 , 24 (1st Cir. 2003); see also Wi-LAN, 684 F.3d at 1373 ; In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d at 102 ; Sullivan v. Warminster Twp., 274 F.R.D. 147, 154 (E.D.

12018–2018
Perkins v. American Mutual Fire Insurance Co. green
ncctapp · 1969
1 sentence

1997Id.

11997–1997
Williams v. Congdon green
ncctapp · 1979
1 sentence

1987See Scott v. Veneer Co., 240 N.C. 73 , 81 S.E. 2d 146 (1954) (statement made in a judicial pleading); Jarman v. Offutt, 239 N.C. 468 , 80 S.E. 2d 248 (1954) (a lunacy hearing is a judicial proceeding within the rule); Williams v. Congdon, 43 N.C.

11987–1987
Jarman v. Offutt green
nc · 1954
2 sentences

1987See Scott v. Veneer Co., 240 N.C. 73 , 81 S.E. 2d 146 (1954) (statement made in a judicial pleading); Jarman v. Offutt, 239 N.C. 468 , 80 S.E. 2d 248 (1954) (a lunacy hearing is a judicial proceeding within the rule); Williams v. Congdon, 43 N.C.

1987See Scott v. Veneer Co., 240 N.C. 73 , 81 S.E. 2d 146 (1954) (statement made in a judicial pleading); Jarman v. Offutt, 239 N.C. 468 , 80 S.E. 2d 248 (1954) (a lunacy hearing is a judicial proceeding within the rule); Williams v. Congdon, 43 N.C.

11987–1987

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (5) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 761 (1893–2026) CO 168 (1990–2026) TX 71 (1986–2025) NJ 58 (1984–2026) VT 54 (1992–2026) PA 47 (1982–2022) NY 47 (1875–2026) FL 43 (1981–2026) CT 39 (1986–2026) IL 32 (1917–2025) WV 24 (1915–2025) MA 22 (1956–2026) OH 17 (1924–2026) AZ 17 (2000–2025) WA 15 (1940–2026) HI 13 (2003–2026) MI 12 (1957–2023) IN 11 (1923–2019) MD 11 (1965–2024) TN 11 (2001–2026) DC 10 (1985–2023) NC 10 (1987–2021) KY 10 (1992–2026) NV 9 (1991–2021) AK 9 (1980–2025) ID 9 (2010–2024) OR 8 (2016–2025) MO 8 (1988–2022) MS 8 (1917–2019) DE 8 (2000–2026) VA 6 (1983–2003) GA 6 (1972–2011) UT 6 (1935–2013) LA 6 (1966–2022) WI 6 (1994–2025) KS 5 (1930–2024) ME 4 (2014–2024) RI 4 (1982–2025) AL 4 (1931–1994) ND 4 (1981–1990) IA 3 (2015–2023) OK 3 (1999–2022) MN 2 (1985–2019) AR 2 (1952–1957) WY 2 (1928–1930) NM 2 (2016–2016) NH 2 (1855–1985)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check