work product privilege in Alaska

7 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Alaska 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 (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
McKibben v. Mohawk Oil Co., Ltd.green alaska · 1983 · cited in 2 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1986–1988 2 sentences 1988See McKibben v. Mohawk Oil, 667 P.2d 1223, 1231 (Alaska 1983) (the protection afforded by the work product doctrine is stated in Rule 26(b)). 1986McKibben v. Mohawk Oil Co., Ltd., 667 P.2d 1223, 1231 (Alaska 1983).	2	2
Smedley v. Travelers Insurancegreen nhd · 1971 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 1 sentence 1988See Smedley v. Traveler’s Insurance, 53 F.R.D. 591, 592 (E.D.Tenn.1971) (insurance company’s inter-office memoranda containing expressions of opinion as to liability and settlement value of case were neither admissible at trial nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence); see also Tronitech, Inc. v. NCR Corp., 108 F.R.D. 655, 655-56 (S.D.Ind.1985). 15 .	1	1
United States v. Ernesto Lopes Salsedogreen ca9 · 1979 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 2 sentences 1988The disclosure was based on New Mexico Rule of Evidence 613(a) which is virtually identical to A.R.E. 613(b)(2). 2 In United States v. Salsedo, 607 F.2d 318, 320-21 (9th Cir.1979), the court held that defense counsel’s reference to a defense-prepared transcript during cross-examination waived any work-product privilege in relation to the transcript. 1988The disclosure was based on New Mexico Rule of Evidence 613(a) which is virtually identical to A.R.E. 613(b)(2). [2] In United States v. Salsedo, 607 F.2d 318, 320-21 (9th Cir.1979), the court held that defense counsel's reference to a defense-prepared transcript during cross-examination waived any work-product privilege in relation to the transcript.	1	1
State v. Turnergreen nmctapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 2 sentences 1988In State v. Turner, 97 N.M. 575 , 642 P.2d 178, 185 (App.1982), cert. quashed, 98 N.M. 51 , 644 P.2d 1040 (1982), the court held that the work-product privilege was waived when defense counsel impeached a witness with statements made to the defendant’s former attorney. 1988In State v. Turner, 97 N.M. 575 , 642 P.2d 178 , 185 (App. 1982), cert. quashed, 98 N.M. 51 , 644 P.2d 1040 (1982), the court held that the work-product privilege was waived when defense counsel impeached a witness with statements made to the defendant's former attorney.	1	1
People v. Smallgreen colo · 1981 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 2 sentences 1988In People v. Small, 631 P.2d 148, 159 (Colo.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1101 , 102 S.Ct. 678 , 70 L.Ed.2d 644 (1981), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the work-product privilege of an investigator’s report was waived when defense counsel used the report to impeach a witness and the witness admitted making the statement to the investigator. 1988In People v. Small, 631 P.2d 148, 159 (Colo.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1101 , 102 S.Ct. 678 , 70 L.Ed.2d 644 (1981), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the work-product privilege of an investigator's report was waived when defense counsel used the report to impeach a witness and the witness admitted making the statement to the investigator.	1	1
Tronitech, Inc. v. NCR Corp.green insd · 1985 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 1 sentence 1988See Smedley v. Traveler’s Insurance, 53 F.R.D. 591, 592 (E.D.Tenn.1971) (insurance company’s inter-office memoranda containing expressions of opinion as to liability and settlement value of case were neither admissible at trial nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence); see also Tronitech, Inc. v. NCR Corp., 108 F.R.D. 655, 655-56 (S.D.Ind.1985). 15 .	1	1
Upjohn Co. v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1981 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 2 sentences 1988See also Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 401 , 101 S.Ct. 677, 688 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584, 598-99 (1981) (Federal R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3) codifies the principles of the “work product doctrine” first established in Hickman). 1988See also Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 401 , 101 S.Ct. 677, 688 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584, 598-99 (1981) (Federal R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3) codifies the principles of the “work product doctrine” first established in Hickman).	1	1
Van Alen v. Anchorage Ski Club, Inc.green alaska · 1975 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 1 sentence 1986Although this court has held that discovery rules are to be liberally construed, Van Alen v. Anchorage Ski Club, Inc., 536 P.2d 784, 787 (Alaska 1975), it has also protected certain subject matter under the work-product doctrine.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

Case	Cited	Years
Hickman v. Taylor green scotus · 1947 2 sentences 2018Wigmore, Evidence § 2290 (McNaughton rev. ed. 1961) ) ); Hickman v. Taylor , 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) (recognizing the work-product privilege for litigation); Langdon v. Champion , 752 P.2d 999 , 1004 (Alaska 1988) (explaining that "[t]he 'work product doctrine,' first recognized [in Hickman ], is part of Alaska's Civil Rule 26(b)(3)." (footnote omitted) ); United Servs. 2018Wigmore, Evidence § 2290 (McNaughton rev. ed. 1961) ) ); Hickman v. Taylor , 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) (recognizing the work-product privilege for litigation); Langdon v. Champion , 752 P.2d 999 , 1004 (Alaska 1988) (explaining that "[t]he 'work product doctrine,' first recognized [in Hickman ], is part of Alaska's Civil Rule 26(b)(3)." (footnote omitted) ); United Servs.	2	1988–2018
Langdon v. Champion green alaska · 1988 2 sentences 2018Wigmore, Evidence § 2290 (McNaughton rev. ed. 1961) ) ); Hickman v. Taylor , 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) (recognizing the work-product privilege for litigation); Langdon v. Champion , 752 P.2d 999 , 1004 (Alaska 1988) (explaining that "[t]he 'work product doctrine,' first recognized [in Hickman ], is part of Alaska's Civil Rule 26(b)(3)." (footnote omitted) ); United Servs. 1992Langdon v. Champion, 752 P.2d 999 (Alaska 1988).	2	1992–2018
Shea v. State, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement & Benefits green alaska · 2011 2 sentences 2018Work-Product Rule , Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). 4 We will refer to Wrede and the City Council collectively as "the City." 5 Griswold v. Homer City Council , 310 P.3d 938 , 940 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Shea v. State, Dep't of Admin., Div. of Ret. & Benefits , 267 P.3d 624 , 630 (Alaska 2011) ). 6 Capital Info. 2018Work-Product Rule , Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). 4 We will refer to Wrede and the City Council collectively as "the City." 5 Griswold v. Homer City Council , 310 P.3d 938 , 940 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Shea v. State, Dep't of Admin., Div. of Ret. & Benefits , 267 P.3d 624 , 630 (Alaska 2011) ). 6 Capital Info.	1	2018–2018
Gwich'in Steering Committee v. State, Office of the Governor green alaska · 2000 1 sentence 2018Deliberative process privilege allows public officials to "withhold documents when public disclosure would deter the open exchange of opinions and recommendations between government officials." Gwich'in Steering Comm. v. State, Office of the Governor , 10 P.3d 572 , 578 (Alaska 2000). 3 The work-product doctrine "provid[es] for qualified immunity of an attorney's work product from discovery or other compelled disclosure.	1	2018–2018
Griswold v. Homer City Council green alaska · 2013 2 sentences 2018Work-Product Rule , Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). 4 We will refer to Wrede and the City Council collectively as "the City." 5 Griswold v. Homer City Council , 310 P.3d 938 , 940 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Shea v. State, Dep't of Admin., Div. of Ret. & Benefits , 267 P.3d 624 , 630 (Alaska 2011) ). 6 Capital Info. 2018Work-Product Rule , Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). 4 We will refer to Wrede and the City Council collectively as "the City." 5 Griswold v. Homer City Council , 310 P.3d 938 , 940 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Shea v. State, Dep't of Admin., Div. of Ret. & Benefits , 267 P.3d 624 , 630 (Alaska 2011) ). 6 Capital Info.	1	2018–2018
United Services Automobile Association v. Werley green alaska · 1974 2 sentences 1990Ass’n v. Werley, 526 P.2d 28 (Alaska 1974), which explicitly left open the question whether the “crime or tort” or “crime or fraud” parameters of the exception to the attorney-client privilege is applicable in Alaska, id. at 32 n. 12, is no longer relevant because Alaska Evidence Rule 503(d)(1) 2 adopted the narrower “crime or fraud” exception; (5) because CMOG did not plead or allege fraud, CMOG’s motion to compel should be denied without prejudice; (6) even if CMOG were allowed to amend its pleadings, it failed to meet its burden of proving a prima facie case of fraud against Home; and (7) C 1990Ass’n v. Werley, 526 P.2d 28 (Alaska 1974), which explicitly left open the question whether the “crime or tort” or “crime or fraud” parameters of the exception to the attorney-client privilege is applicable in Alaska, id. at 32 n. 12, is no longer relevant because Alaska Evidence Rule 503(d)(1) 2 adopted the narrower “crime or fraud” exception; (5) because CMOG did not plead or allege fraud, CMOG’s motion to compel should be denied without prejudice; (6) even if CMOG were allowed to amend its pleadings, it failed to meet its burden of proving a prima facie case of fraud against Home; and (7) C	1	1990–1990
In re Lucero green nm · 1982 2 sentences 1988In State v. Turner, 97 N.M. 575 , 642 P.2d 178, 185 (App.1982), cert. quashed, 98 N.M. 51 , 644 P.2d 1040 (1982), the court held that the work-product privilege was waived when defense counsel impeached a witness with statements made to the defendant’s former attorney. 1988In State v. Turner, 97 N.M. 575 , 642 P.2d 178 , 185 (App. 1982), cert. quashed, 98 N.M. 51 , 644 P.2d 1040 (1982), the court held that the work-product privilege was waived when defense counsel impeached a witness with statements made to the defendant's former attorney.	1	1988–1988
United States v. Nobles green scotus · 1975 2 sentences 1988Id. at 239 , 95 S.Ct. at 2170 . 1988Id. at 239 , 95 S.Ct. at 2170 .	1	1988–1988
West v. Austin green scotus · 1981 2 sentences 1988In People v. Small, 631 P.2d 148, 159 (Colo.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1101 , 102 S.Ct. 678 , 70 L.Ed.2d 644 (1981), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the work-product privilege of an investigator’s report was waived when defense counsel used the report to impeach a witness and the witness admitted making the statement to the investigator. 1988In People v. Small, 631 P.2d 148, 159 (Colo.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1101 , 102 S.Ct. 678 , 70 L.Ed.2d 644 (1981), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the work-product privilege of an investigator's report was waived when defense counsel used the report to impeach a witness and the witness admitted making the statement to the investigator.	1	1988–1988
Neal v. Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District green scotus · 1981 2 sentences 1988In People v. Small, 631 P.2d 148, 159 (Colo.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1101 , 102 S.Ct. 678 , 70 L.Ed.2d 644 (1981), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the work-product privilege of an investigator’s report was waived when defense counsel used the report to impeach a witness and the witness admitted making the statement to the investigator. 1988In People v. Small, 631 P.2d 148, 159 (Colo.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1101 , 102 S.Ct. 678 , 70 L.Ed.2d 644 (1981), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the work-product privilege of an investigator's report was waived when defense counsel used the report to impeach a witness and the witness admitted making the statement to the investigator.	1	1988–1988
Vecchio v. Dorfman green scotus · 1981 2 sentences 1988In People v. Small, 631 P.2d 148, 159 (Colo.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1101 , 102 S.Ct. 678 , 70 L.Ed.2d 644 (1981), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the work-product privilege of an investigator’s report was waived when defense counsel used the report to impeach a witness and the witness admitted making the statement to the investigator. 1988In People v. Small, 631 P.2d 148, 159 (Colo.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1101 , 102 S.Ct. 678 , 70 L.Ed.2d 644 (1981), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the work-product privilege of an investigator's report was waived when defense counsel used the report to impeach a witness and the witness admitted making the statement to the investigator.	1	1988–1988
City of Long Beach v. Superior Court green calctapp · 1976 1 sentence 1986City of Long Beach, 134 Cal.Rptr. at 478 . 12 It is clear that if the interrogatory requests facts supporting a claim, it does not violate the work-product rule.	1	1986–1986
Miller v. Harpster green alaska · 1964 1 sentence 1978The objective of our discovery rules was clearly enunciated in Miller v. Harpster, 392 P.2d 21 (Alaska 1964), where a similar work-product claim was raised.	1	1978–1978

Where else courts name it

CA 160 (1962–2026) TX 159 (1984–2026) FL 155 (1961–2026) OH 131 (1978–2026) PA 109 (1973–2026) IL 76 (1980–2025) WA 72 (1975–2025) MA 54 (1980–2025) NJ 52 (1950–2026) IN 46 (1976–2025) MO 43 (1977–2025) NC 40 (1990–2024) NY 40 (1964–2024) VA 37 (1970–2018) CT 34 (1969–2021) MI 34 (1975–2025) AL 26 (1987–2014) CO 26 (1981–2025) WV 25 (1984–2025) AZ 25 (1970–2025) TN 24 (1968–2024) MD 23 (1977–2025) IA 21 (1993–2024) MT 20 (1981–2018) RI 19 (1978–2025) DE 18 (1967–2025) GA 18 (1970–2021) KY 17 (1985–2024) NV 16 (1997–2019) LA 16 (1983–2025) OK 14 (1983–2026) DC 13 (1977–2023) MS 13 (1992–2023) NH 13 (1967–2021) NM 13 (1966–2025) ME 13 (2007–2019) WI 10 (1975–2003) UT 8 (1990–2023) HI 7 (1982–2023) AK 7 (1978–2018) KS 6 (1999–2019) ND 5 (1978–2022) MN 5 (1979–2024) OR 4 (1998–2023) AR 4 (1996–2009) SC 4 (1997–2019) VT 3 (1990–2023) SD 3 (1989–1999)

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