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.
6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 75 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Monroe Adlman, as Officer and Representative of Sequa Corporation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Monroe Adlman, as Officer and Representative of Sequa Corporation Anchor | green | “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.” | 29 |
| 2 | United States v. Monroe Adlman, as Officer and Representative of Sequa Corporation | green | “is intended to preserve a zone of privacy in which a lawyer can prepare and develop legal theories and strategy 'with an eye toward litigation,' free from unnecessary intrusion by his adversaries.” | 14 |
| 3 | United States v. Monroe Adlman, as Officer and Representative of Sequa Corporation | green | “to preserve a zone of privacy in which a lawyer can prepare and develop legal theories and strategy 'with an eye toward litigation,' free from unnecessary intrusion by his adversaries.” | 13 |
| 4 | Allied Irish Banks, P.L.C. v. Bank of America, N.A. | green | “(1) is a document or a tangible thing, (2) that was prepared in anticipation of litigation, and (3) was prepared by or for a party, or by his representative.” | 8 |
| 5 | In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated July 6, 2005 | green | “reveals the 'mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative” | 6 |
| 6 | Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd. | green | “federal law governs the applicability of the work-product doctrine in all actions in federal court.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.