46 Indiana opinions name it 3 courts 1976–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Keaton v. Circuit Court of Rush Countygreen2 sentences2007Joined by Justice Hunter, Justice DeBruler disagreed with the majority’s application of the work product doctrine to police reports, stating that the “doctrine protects the machinations of lawyers and their legal staffs, not law enforcement officers engaged in their day to day [field] work.” Id. at 1149 (DeBruler, J., dissenting). 7 In other cases, the Indiana Supreme Court has held that verbatim witness statements and general summaries of witnesses’ expected testimony are not protected by the work product privilege from otherwise proper discovery. 2007Joined by Justice Hunter, Justice DeBruler disagreed with the majority’s application of the work product doctrine to police reports, stating that the “doctrine protects the machinations of lawyers and their legal staffs, not law enforcement officers engaged in their day to day [field] work.” Id. at 1149 (DeBruler, J., dissenting). 7 In other cases, the Indiana Supreme Court has held that verbatim witness statements and general summaries of witnesses’ expected testimony are not protected by the work product privilege from otherwise proper discovery. | 2 | 3 |
TP Orthodontics, Inc. v. Keslinggreen2 sentences2025In this respect, the party asserting the work product privilege “must establish that the materials sought to be protected from disclosure were prepared in anticipation of litigation rather than in the normal course of business.” TP Orthodontics, Inc. v. Kesling, 15 N.E.3d 985, 995 (Ind. 2014); see also T.R. 26(B)(3). 2024TP Orthodontics, Inc. v. Kesling, 15 N.E.3d 985, 995 (Ind. 2014). | 2 | 2 |
Hickman v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2018Zurich also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the Document designated ZURPRI 218 was discoverable. 4 Hickman is the case that established the work-product doctrine, concluding that "[n]ot even the most liberal of discovery theories can justify unwarranted inquiries into the files and the mental impressions of an attorney." 329 U.S. at 510 , 67 S.Ct. 385 . 2018Zurich also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the Document designated ZURPRI 218 was discoverable. 4 Hickman is the case that established the work-product doctrine, concluding that "[n]ot even the most liberal of discovery theories can justify unwarranted inquiries into the files and the mental impressions of an attorney." 329 U.S. at 510 , 67 S.Ct. 385 . | 1 | 13 |
Burr v. United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.green2 sentences2024Co., 560 N.E.2d 1250, 1254 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (“The threshold determination in any case involving an assertion of the work-product privilege is whether the materials sought to be protected from disclosure were in fact prepared in anticipation of litigation.”) It is the party asserting the privilege who must establish that the materials were Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-1896 | February 28, 2024 Page 14 of 16 prepared in anticipation of litigation rather than in the normal course of business. 2004The evaluation letter does not describe or summarize any other document in the claim file and says nothing about the applicability of the work product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege to other documents in the claim file. "[An] in camera disclosure in ... [privilege] matters must be so complete and understandable [that] the trial court need not ... do any further research or review of other papers on the subject." Burr, 560 N.E.2d at 1255 . | 1 | 4 |
Hicks v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See Hicks v. State, 544 N.E.2d 500, 503-04 (Ind.1989) (verbatim statements); Partlow v. State, 453 N.E.2d 259, 266-67 (Ind.1983) (general summaries), cert, denied (1984). 2007See Hicks v. State, 544 N.E.2d 500, 503-04 (Ind.1989) (verbatim statements); Partlow v. State, 453 N.E.2d 259, 266-67 (Ind.1983) (general summaries), cert, denied (1984). | 1 | 3 |
Partlow v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See Hicks v. State, 544 N.E.2d 500, 503-04 (Ind.1989) (verbatim statements); Partlow v. State, 453 N.E.2d 259, 266-67 (Ind.1983) (general summaries), cert, denied (1984). 2007See Hicks v. State, 544 N.E.2d 500, 503-04 (Ind.1989) (verbatim statements); Partlow v. State, 453 N.E.2d 259, 266-67 (Ind.1983) (general summaries), cert, denied (1984). | 1 | 2 |
Lindsey v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Lindsey v. State , 888 N.E.2d 319 , 325 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied . 9 Hinkle seems to suggest that the court's April 8, 2013, finding of congestion was erroneous because the case that prevailed over his was not ultimately tried on that date. | 1 | 1 |
Popovich v. Indiana Department of State Revenuegreen1 sentence2016See Popovich I, 7 N.E.3d at 412-19 . 2 On October 22, 2014, the Court conducted a hearing on Popovich’s request for expenses as required by Indiana Trial Rule 37(A)(4). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hogangreen1 sentence2015See State v. Hogan, 588 N.E.2d 560, 562 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Cigna-INA/Aetna v. Hagerman-Shambaughgreen1 sentence2015See CIGNA-INA/Aetna v. Hagerman-Shambaugh, 473 N.E.2d 1033, 1037 (Ind.Ct.App.1985), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Lahr v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., Lahr v. State, 731 N.E.2d 479, 483 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (recognizing crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege); Becker, 727 *807 N.E.2d at 740 (recognizing that client may waive privilege by disclosing or consenting to disclosure of privileged matter); Ind. Trial Rule 26(B)(3) (establishing undue hardship exception to work-product doctrine). | 1 | 1 |
Madden v. Indiana Department of Transportationgreen1 sentence2014But assuming for argument’s sake that the attorney was acting as Purdue’s legal counsel, we note that evidentiary privileges created “to shield selected information from discovery ... may not be wielded as swords at the will of a party.” Madden v. Ind. Dep’t of Transp., 832 N.E.2d 1122, 1128 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). | 1 | 1 |
Donnelley & Sons Co. v. North Texas Steel Co., Inc.green2 sentences2010Donnelley & Sons Co. v. N. Tex. Steel Co., Inc., 752 N.E.2d 112, 132 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (quoting William F. Harvey, Indiana Practice: Rules of Procedure Annotated § 26.14 (3d ed. 2000)). 2010Donnelley & Sons Co. v. N. Tex. Steel Co., Inc., 752 N.E.2d 112, 132 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (quoting William F. Harvey, Indiana Practice: Rules of Procedure Annotated § 26.14 (3d ed. 2000)). | 1 | 1 |
Averhart v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Averhart v. State, 614 N.E.2d 924, 927 (Ind.1993) (per curiam) ("Delving into the inner workings of the prosecuting attorney's office at the time of preparation for trial would of course be invading the work-product privilege"). 2009Averhart v. State, 614 N.E.2d 924, 927 (Ind.1993) (per curiam) ("Delving into the inner workings of the prosecuting attorney's office at the time of preparation for trial would of course be invading the work-product privilege"). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Paszkogreen2 sentences2007See Commonwealth v. Paszko, 391 Mass. 164 , 461 N.E.2d 222, 236-37 (1984) ("The work product doctrine is a creature of public policy, not constitutional compulsion.”). 2007See Commonwealth v. Paszko, 391 Mass. 164 , 461 N.E.2d 222, 236-37 (1984) ("The work product doctrine is a creature of public policy, not constitutional compulsion.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Reeves v. Boyd & Sons, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| DeMoss Rexall Drugs v. Dobsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bowengreen | 1 | 1 |
| McDermott v. Kansasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hodge v. Atlantic Coast Lumber Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Nobles
green
2 sentences2007In U.S. v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), the Court applied a more expansive version of the doctrine in a criminal case: At its core, the work-product doctrine shelters the mental processes of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he can analyze and prepare his client’s case. 2007In U.S. v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), the Court applied a more expansive version of the doctrine in a criminal case: At its core, the work-product doctrine shelters the mental processes of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he can analyze and prepare his client’s case. | 7 | 1979–2007 |
American Bldgs. Co. v. Kokomo Grain Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2018In American Buildings Company v. Kokomo Grain Company, Inc. , 506 N.E.2d 56 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987), trans. denied , we noted that [t]he primary purpose of the work product privilege is to assure that an attorney is not inhibited in his representation of his client by the fear that his files will be open to scrutiny upon demand of an opposing party. 2010American object ed to the request, asserting that the documents sought were irrelevant and protected by the work-product doctrine. 506 N.E.2d at 58 . | 5 | 1989–2018 |
Goldberg v. United States
green
2 sentences1980Goldberg v. United States, (1976) 425 U.S. 94 , 96 S. Ct. 1338 , 47 L. 1980Goldberg v. United States, (1976) 425 U.S. 94 , 96 S. Ct. 1338 , 47 L. | 4 | 1980–1980 |
Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014"The work-product doctrine prohibits a party in litigation from obtaining from another party its 'attorney’s notes and memoranda reflecting the attorney’s theories and mental impressions about the case.’ ” Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165 , 169 n. 7 (Ind.1996) (citations omitted); see also Ind. Trial Rule 26(B)(3). 1999“The work-product doctrine prohibits a party in litigation from obtaining from another party its ‘attorney’s notes and memoranda reflecting the attorney’s theories and mental impressions about the ease.’” Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc. (1996) Ind., 669 N.E.2d 165 , 169 n. 7 (quoting Cua v. Morrison (1993) Ind.App., 626 N.E.2d 581, 584 , adopted by (1994) Ind., 636 N.E.2d 1248 ). | 3 | 1999–2014 |
In Re Murphy
green
2 sentences2018We concluded that the rationale in Murphy was persuasive and so held that "the work-product doctrine applies to items prepared in anticipation of prior litigation." Id. 1990In In re Murphy (8th Cir.1977), 560 F.2d 326 , 337 the court compared the work product doctrine and the attorney client privilege. | 2 | 1990–2018 |
In Re Perrigo Company
green
2 sentences2014Report since it constructively brought the Report into issue.” 128 F.3d at 448 . 2014Report since it constructively brought the Report into issue.” 128 F.3d at 448 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co.
green
2 sentences2010Id. 1990UFB claims the recent Indiana case of Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co. (1989), Ind.App., 547 N.E.2d 860 , holds a blanket claim of protection for the work product privilege is adequate. | 2 | 1990–2010 |
Crawford v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LAKE CTY.
green
2 sentences2003Crawford v. Superior Court of Lake County, 549 N.E.2d 374 , 375-76 (Ind.1990) (holding that the work product privilege does not protect substantially verbatim witness statements from pre-trial discovery). 1997Id. at 376 . | 2 | 1997–2003 |
Cua v. Morrison
green
2 sentences1999“The work-product doctrine prohibits a party in litigation from obtaining from another party its ‘attorney’s notes and memoranda reflecting the attorney’s theories and mental impressions about the ease.’” Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc. (1996) Ind., 669 N.E.2d 165 , 169 n. 7 (quoting Cua v. Morrison (1993) Ind.App., 626 N.E.2d 581, 584 , adopted by (1994) Ind., 636 N.E.2d 1248 ). 1996The work-product doctrine prohibits a party in litigation from obtaining from another party its "attorney's notes and memoranda reflecting the attorney's theories and mental impressions about the case." Cua, 626 N.E.2d at 584 (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947), and Ind.Trial Rule 26(B)(3)). 8 . | 2 | 1996–1999 |
State Ex Rel. Meyers v. Tippecanoe Superior Court
green
2 sentences1989Meyers v. Tippecanoe Superior Court (1982), Ind., 438 N.E.2d 989 (summaries of expected witness testimony with respect to each essential element of each charged offense held protected from defendant's discovery as work product of State); Partlow v. State (1983), Ind., 453 N.E.2d 259 , cert. denied (1984), 464 U.S. 1072 , 104 S.Ct. 983 , 79 LEd.2d 219 (work product doctrine does not apply to shield defendant's abstract of expected witness testimony); State ex rel. 1985Meyers, supra; Spears, supra. The work product doctrine protects materials prepared by agents for the attorney as well as those prepared by the attorney himself. | 2 | 1985–1989 |
Burns v. Indiana
green
2 sentences1989In cases such as Burns v. State (1987), Ind., 511 N.E.2d 1052 , cited by the majority, we have held that the work-product exception does not preclude discovery of verbatim statements of witnesses once they have testified at trial. 1989In cases such as Burns v. State (1987), Ind., 511 N.E.2d 1052 , cited by the majority, we have held that the work-product exception does not preclude discovery of verbatim statements of witnesses once they have testified at trial. | 2 | 1987–1989 |
In Re Grand Jury Investigation. Appeal of United States of America
green
2 sentences1987While these authorities have failed to establish a clear line between those doe-uments which are prepared in anticipation of litigation and those which are not, they have made clear that a case need not actually be filed at the time the document is produced in order for work-product protection to attach. " 'Indisputably, the work-product doctrine extends to material prepared or collected before litigation actually commences.'" CIGNA-INA/Aetna v. Hagerman-Shambaugh, supra, 478 N.E.2d at 1037, quoting In re Grand Jury Investigation (1979) 3d Cir., 599 F.2d 1224, 1229 . 1985Thus the test should be whether, in light of the nature of the document and the factual situation in the particular case, the document can fairly be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation.' 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil Section 2024, at 198 (1970) (emphasis added; footnote omitted)." f 599 F.2d at 1229 . | 2 | 1985–1987 |
Tackett v. State Farm Fire & Casualty
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 1103-05 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Beckham v. State
green
2 sentences2007Beckham does state, “[I]f the reports are used by the witness on the stand, the ‘work product’ privilege is waived.” 531 N.E.2d at 477 . 2007Beckham does state, "[I]f the reports are used by the witness on the stand, the `work product' privilege is waived." 531 N.E.2d at 477 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Davis v. State
green
2 sentences2007Id. 2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Cua v. Morrison green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Snead v. American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc. green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Upjohn Co. v. United States green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Colman v. Heidenreich green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Newton v. Yates green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| La Salle National Bank v. Triumvera Homeowners Ass'n green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Kent (Donald G.) v. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Taroli v. General Electric Co. green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Walker v. State green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Malumphy v. Arizona Board of Pardons green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Yu v. California green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Dixon v. Missouri green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Spears v. State green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| In re Rehearing green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| ANTROBUS v. State green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Quadrini v. Sikorsky Aircraft Division green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| APL Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| The Duplan Corporation v. Moulinage Et Retorderie De Chavanoz, Deering Milliken, Inc. green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| In Re Terkeltoub green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Peel v. State green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| In the Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings. Frank J. Duffy v. United States green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Alltmont v. United States green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| cluster 255931 green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.