Legal Opinion

Diaz v. Washington State Migrant Council

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided November 22, 2011No. 29005-1-IIIPublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSiddoway, J.

¶1 This interlocutory appeal calls upon us to address a corporation’s responsibility for responding to discovery when members of its board of directors refuse to provide relevant information because of concern for their individual exposure to criminal prosecution. The trial court correctly recognized that while the board members had the right, individually, to invoke their privilege against self-incrimination when deposed, a corporation enjoys no Fifth Amendment privilege.

¶2 Following oral argument and preparation of this opinion, the parties notified us that they had settled their disputes…

2Cases cited59 opinions

  1. Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De GuineeSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Baxter v. PalmigianoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. State Ex Rel. Carroll v. JunkerWashington Supreme Court · 1971
  4. United States v. KordelSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1993

54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Reverse Now Vii, LLC v. Or. Mut. Ins. Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2018
  2. Gorden v. Lloyd Ward & Associates, PCCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  3. Dale E. Alsager, D.o., Phd. v. Wa State Bd Of Osteopathic MedicineCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016
  4. State v. Brelvis Consulting LLCCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2018
  5. Arthur West v. Office Of The Governor, State Of WashingtonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2021

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API