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.
8 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah 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 |
|---|---|---|
Salt Lake Legal Defender Ass'n v. Unogreen2 sentences2006According to Menzies, the district court erred by ordering that the disputed documents be produced to the State in the first place because the procedure for applying the work product doctrine set forth in Salt Lake Legal Defender Ass'n v. Uno, 932 P.2d 589 (Utah 1997), requires the district court to conduct an in-camera review to ensure that the party seeking production meets the Uno standard before such documents are produced. 2006According to Menzies, the district court erred by ordering that the disputed documents be produced to the State in the first place because the procedure for applying the work product doctrine set forth in Salt Lake Legal Defender Ass'n v. Uno, 932 P.2d 589 (Utah 1997), requires the district court to conduct an in-camera review to ensure that the party seeking production meets the Uno standard before such documents are produced. | 1 | 2 |
State v. McNearneygreen2 sentences2023See State v. McNearney, 2005 UT App 133, ¶ 15 , 110 P.3d 183 . 2023See State v. McNearney, 2005 UT App 133, ¶ 15 , 110 P.3d 183 . | 1 | 1 |
Garrand v. Garrandgreen2 sentences2001See Garrand v. Garrand, 581 P.2d 1012, 1014 (Utah 1978); see also Affleck v. Third Judicial Dist. 2001See Garrand v. Garrand, 581 P.2d 1012, 1014 (Utah 1978); see also Affleck v. Third Judicial Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Jenkins v. Weisgreen2 sentences1994See Jenkins v. Weis, 868 P.2d 1374, 1376 (Utah App.1994). 1994See Jenkins v. Weis, 868 P.2d 1374, 1376 (Utah App.1994). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hamiltongreen2 sentences1994Even if the trial court erred in ruling that the insurance file was protected by the work product doctrine, such an erroneous decision “cannot result in reversible error unless the error is harmful.” State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 240 (Utah 1992). 1994Even if the trial court erred in ruling that the insurance file was protected by the work product doctrine, such an erroneous decision "cannot result in reversible error unless the error is harmful." State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 240 (Utah 1992). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 384998green1 sentence1990An inquiry to determine whether a document was prepared in anticipation of litigation should focus on the “ ‘primary motivating purpose behind the creation of the document.’ ” United States v. Gulf Oil Corp., 760 F.2d 292, 296 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.1985) (quoting United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028, 1040 (5th Cir.1981)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Gulf Oil Corp.green1 sentence1990An inquiry to determine whether a document was prepared in anticipation of litigation should focus on the “ ‘primary motivating purpose behind the creation of the document.’ ” United States v. Gulf Oil Corp., 760 F.2d 292, 296 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.1985) (quoting United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028, 1040 (5th Cir.1981)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shearn Moody, Jr. v. Internal Revenue Service
green
2 sentences2001Cireuit held in Moody v. IRS, "[A] lawyer's unprofessional behavior may vitiate the work product privilege." 654 F.2d at 800 . 2001Circuit held in Moody v. IRS , "[A] lawyer's unprofessional behavior may vitiate the work product privilege." 654 F.2d at 800 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Askew v. Hardman
green
1 sentence2001In response, Louder argued that documents prepared in anticipation of litigation by an insurer are protected by the work-product privilege under Askew v. Hardman, 918 P.2d 469 (Utah 1996). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Ex Parte Uppercu
green
2 sentences1990Trail Mountain rests on the law enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Ex Parte Uppercu, 239 U.S. 435 , 36 S.Ct. 140 , 60 L.Ed. 368 (1915), which determined that "absent a question of privilege a litigant who needs court records that may be of evidentiary value to his case cannot be denied access to them, even though they were sealed by the court in a different proceeding." Note, Nonparty Access to Discovery Materials in the Federal Courts, 94 Harv.L.Rev. 1085, 1093 (1981). 1990Trail Mountain rests on the law enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Ex Parte Uppercu, 239 U.S. 435 , 36 S.Ct. 140 , 60 L.Ed. 368 (1915), which determined that "absent a question of privilege a litigant who needs court records that may be of evidentiary value to his case cannot be denied access to them, even though they were sealed by the court in a different proceeding." Note, Nonparty Access to Discovery Materials in the Federal Courts, 94 Harv.L.Rev. 1085, 1093 (1981). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Frankenhauser v. Rizzo
green
1 sentence1990The investigations reported in Mad-sen’s internal affairs files were “undertaken not in anticipation of litigation but rather as a routine procedure.” Id. at 342 n. 5. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Hickman v. Taylor
green
2 sentences1990WORK PRODUCT The genesis of the current work product doctrine is Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). 1990WORK PRODUCT The genesis of the current work product doctrine is Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Kelly v. City of San Jose
green
1 sentence1990It applies only to material generated primarily for use in litigation, material that would not have been generated but for the pendency or imminence of litigation.” Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 659 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.