8 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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. Noblesgreen1 sentence1999Practice Book § 13-3 (a); see United States v. Noble , 422 U.S. 225 . 238-39 (1975) (Work product doctrine protects material prepared by an attorney's agent.) "Typically, the attorney work product doctrine encompasses work that is essentially the result of an attorney's activities when those activities have been conducted with a view toward litigation. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stanley Works v. New Britain Redevelopment Agency
green
2 sentences2001Stanley Works v. New Britain Redevelopment Agency , 155 Conn. 86 , 95 , 230 A.2d 9 (1967); see Hickman v. Taylor . . . 329 U.S. [495], 511 [(1947)]." Metropolitan Life Ins. 2001Stanley Works v. New Britain Redevelopment Agency , 155 Conn. 86 , 95 , 230 A.2d 9 (1967); see Hickman v. Taylor . . . 329 U.S. [495], 511 [(1947)]." Metropolitan Life Ins. | 3 | 1999–2001 |
State v. Weber
neutral
2 sentences2011The defendant cites a Superior Court case, State v. Weber, 49 Conn. Sup. 530 , 896 A.2d 153 (2004), for the proposition that the work product doctrine should have prohibited disclosure of the notes because “disclosure would likely cause prejudice or injury to the ongoing relationship between the defendant and his counsel, thereby diminishing his sixth amendment right . . . .” We conclude that Weber is not helpful to the defendant’s claim because that case involved the application *750 of the attorney work product doctrine during pretrial discovery and does not stand for the proposition that th 2011The defendant cites a Superior Court case, State v. Weber, 49 Conn. Sup. 530 , 896 A.2d 153 (2004), for the proposition that the work product doctrine should have prohibited disclosure of the notes because “disclosure would likely cause prejudice or injury to the ongoing relationship between the defendant and his counsel, thereby diminishing his sixth amendment right . . . .” We conclude that Weber is not helpful to the defendant’s claim because that case involved the application *750 of the attorney work product doctrine during pretrial discovery and does not stand for the proposition that th | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Hickman v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2004Work product doctrine protects an attorney’s “interviews, statements, memoranda, correspondence, briefs, mental impressions, personal beliefs, and countless other tangible and intangible [items].” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 , 67 S. Ct. 385 , 91 L. 2004Work product doctrine protects an attorney’s “interviews, statements, memoranda, correspondence, briefs, mental impressions, personal beliefs, and countless other tangible and intangible [items].” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 , 67 S. Ct. 385 , 91 L. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc., and Textiles Y Confecciones Europeas, S.A. v. Levi Strauss & Company, Defendant-Plaintiff-Appellee
green
1 sentence2002Lois Sportswear USA, Inc. v. Levi Strauss Co., 104 F.R.D. 103 , 105 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd, 799 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1986). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co.
green
1 sentence2002Lois Sportswear USA, Inc. v. Levi Strauss Co., 104 F.R.D. 103 , 105 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd, 799 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1986). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Ullmann v. State
green
2 sentences2001Work Product Rule CT Page 16231 The attorney work product doctrine in Connecticut is set forth in Practice Book § 13-3 . 7 "Work product can be defined as the result of an attorney's activities when those activities have been conducted with a view to pending or anticipated litigation." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ullmann v. State , 230 Conn. 698 , 714-15 , 647 A.2d 324 (1994); accord Richards Corp. v. Semac Electrical , Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Docket No. 476427 (August 10, 1999, Robinson, J. ). 2001Work Product Rule CT Page 16231 The attorney work product doctrine in Connecticut is set forth in Practice Book § 13-3 . 7 "Work product can be defined as the result of an attorney's activities when those activities have been conducted with a view to pending or anticipated litigation." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ullmann v. State , 230 Conn. 698 , 714-15 , 647 A.2d 324 (1994); accord Richards Corp. v. Semac Electrical , Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Docket No. 476427 (August 10, 1999, Robinson, J. ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Boring v. Keller
green
1 sentence1992Boring v. Keller, 97 F.R.D. 404 , 407-408 (DC Col. 1983). | 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.