6 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1840–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ken's Foods, Inc. v. Ken's Steak House, Inc.green2 sentences2007The joint defense or common-interest doctrine applies “[w]hen two or more clients consult or retain an attorney on particular matters of common interest” as well as to “communications made by the client or the client’s lawyer to a lawyer representing another in a matter of common interest.” Ken’s Foods, Inc. v. Ken's Steak House, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 89, 93 (D.Mass. 2002), citing 3 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence §§503.21[1] & 503.12[2] (internal quotations omitted). 2006See Ken’s Foods, 213 F.R.D. at 93 (“While a written agreement is not a prerequisite for invoking the common interest doctrine, parties seeking to invoke the exception must establish that they agreed to engage in a joint effort and to keep the shared information confidential from outsiders”). 5 In the context of this case, this Court finds that the defendants in the underlying tort litigation implicitly entered into a joint defense agreement regarding the plaintiffs’ claim against them. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Maxwellgreen1 sentence2016Ill. 1980) (“It is fundamental that ‘the joint defense privilege cannot be waived without the consent of all parties to the defense’ ”); State v. Maxwell, 10 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
City Consumer Services, Inc. v. Hornegreen1 sentence1987Corp. v. Armco Steel Corp., 559 F.2d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 1977), the court stated the substantial relationship test as it applies in the joint defense context: “Just as an attorney would not be allowed to proceed against his former client in a cause of action substantially related to the matters in which he previously represented that client, an attorney should also not be allowed to proceed against a co-defendant of a former client wherein the subject matter of the present controversy is substantially related to the matters in which the attorney was previously involved, and wherein confidential | 1 | 1 |
Wilson P. Abraham Construction Corporation v. Armco Steel Corporation, the Ceco Corporation, and Laclede Steel Companygreen1 sentence1987Corp. v. Armco Steel Corp., 559 F.2d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 1977), the court stated the substantial relationship test as it applies in the joint defense context: “Just as an attorney would not be allowed to proceed against his former client in a cause of action substantially related to the matters in which he previously represented that client, an attorney should also not be allowed to proceed against a co-defendant of a former client wherein the subject matter of the present controversy is substantially related to the matters in which the attorney was previously involved, and wherein confidential | 1 | 1 |
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated November 16, 1974green1 sentence1976See Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated November 16, 1974, 406 F. Supp. 381, 386-389 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kunckle v. Kunckle
neutral
1 sentence1840J. said, “if after a joint hearing of the parties and their proofs, in the first instance, and before a recommitment, one of the referees absent himself immediately, or refuse to consult with his brethren, or to give any opinion, then the other two have full power to decide the cause upon the evidence previously produced, and heard by all.” And so in Kunckle v. Kunckle, 1 Dall. 364 , an award signed by two of the three referees, without notice to the third, was sustained, where they agreed upon the substance of their report in the presence of the third referee, who declared his disagreement, a | 1 | 1840–1840 |
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.