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.
7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
No. 90-5901green1 sentence2009Black v. Southwestern Water Conservation Dist., 74 P.3d 462, 469 (Colo.App.2003) (discussing the common interest doctrine in relation to the attorney-client privilege); see In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 89-3 & 89-4, John Doe 89-129, 902 F.2d 244 , 249 (4th Cir.1990) (common interest rule applies to communications subject to both the attorney-client and work product privileges). | 1 | 1 |
Black v. Southwestern Water Conservation Districtgreen1 sentence2009Black v. Southwestern Water Conservation Dist., 74 P.3d 462, 469 (Colo.App.2003) (discussing the common interest doctrine in relation to the attorney-client privilege); see In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 89-3 & 89-4, John Doe 89-129, 902 F.2d 244 , 249 (4th Cir.1990) (common interest rule applies to communications subject to both the attorney-client and work product privileges). | 1 | 1 |
Lazar v. Riggsgreen1 sentence2007See id.; see also Lazar, 79 P.3d at 107 ("[A] showing that a claims adjuster ... conducted an investigation of a claim, during which he compiled various reports and statements, would not be sufficient by itself to overcome the presumption of an ordinary business activity."). | 1 | 1 |
Hawkins v. District Court in & for the Fourth Judicial Districtgreen1 sentence2007See Hawkins, 638 P.2d at 1378-79 (discussing the unreasonable restriction of discovery that would occur if the attorney work-product privilege protected the mere investigation of an insurance claim in the ordinary course of business). | 1 | 1 |
National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.green2 sentences1998See Sears, 421 U.S. at 154 , 95 S.Ct. 1504 ; Schell, 843 F.2d at 939 ; Mead Data Cent., 566 F.2d at 252 . 1998See Sears, 421 U.S. at 154 , 95 S.Ct. 1504 ; Schell, 843 F.2d at 939 ; Mead Data Cent., 566 F.2d at 252 . | 1 | 1 |
Denver Post Corp. v. University of Coloradogreen2 sentences1998See Denver Post Corp. v. University of Colo., 739 P.2d 874, 880 (Colo.App.1987). 1998See Denver Post, 739 P.2d at 880 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People ex rel. E.G.
green
1 sentence2020We limit our discussion accordingly. 7 criminal discovery beyond what is authorized by the Constitution, the rules, or by statute.” Id. at ¶ 13, 368 P.3d at 950 . ¶16 This case does not implicate discovery authorized by the Colorado Constitution or any of our statutes. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Federal Trade Commission v. Grolier Inc.
green
2 sentences2012F.T.C. v. Grolier, Inc., 462 U.S. 19, 25 , 103 S.Ct. 2209 , 76 L.Ed.2d 387 (1983). 2012F.T.C. v. Grolier, Inc., 462 U.S. 19, 25 , 103 S.Ct. 2209 , 76 L.Ed.2d 387 (1983). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Nat. Farmers Un. Prop. & Cas. v. DENVER DC
green
1 sentence2007In National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. District Court, we found that the attorney work-product privilege did not protect a memorandum of an insurance company's claim investigation because the memorandum was prepared before the claim was denied and litigation did not become imminent until after the claim was denied. 718 P.2d 1044 , 1048 (Colo.1986). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Hickman v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2002Id. * The rule of disclosure embodied in Rule 26(a)(2) shares an uneasy coexistence with the attorney work product doctrine developed by the United States Supreme Court in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) and codified in Rule 26(b)(8) of the federal and state rules of civil procedure. 2002Id. * The rule of disclosure embodied in Rule 26(a)(2) shares an uneasy coexistence with the attorney work product doctrine developed by the United States Supreme Court in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) and codified in Rule 26(b)(8) of the federal and state rules of civil procedure. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
B.C.F. Oil Refining, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002Id. * The rule of disclosure embodied in Rule 26(a)(2) shares an uneasy coexistence with the attorney work product doctrine developed by the United States Supreme Court in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) and codified in Rule 26(b)(8) of the federal and state rules of civil procedure. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
William F. Schell v. United States Department of Health & Human Services, Defendants
green
1 sentence1998See Sears, 421 U.S. at 154 , 95 S.Ct. 1504 ; Schell, 843 F.2d at 939 ; Mead Data Cent., 566 F.2d at 252 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Mead Data Central, Inc. v. United States Department of the Air Force
green
1 sentence1998See Sears, 421 U.S. at 154 , 95 S.Ct. 1504 ; Schell, 843 F.2d at 939 ; Mead Data Cent., 566 F.2d at 252 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of Fmc Corporation, Douglas E. Kliever and Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton
green
1 sentence1982See also Caldwell v. District Court, supra; In re Grand Jury Proceedings (FMC Corp.), 604 F.2d 798 (3rd Cir. 1979); Clark v. United States, supra. In addition, just as the attorney-client privilege may not be abused as a shield for ongoing or future illegal activity, the attorney work product doctrine cannot be allowed to protect the perpetration of wrongful conduct. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.