American Motors Corp. v. Huffstutler
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMilligan, J.
Our attention in this case is focused primarily upon the propriety of the permanent injunction issued by the trial court. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstate the permanent injunction.
Principles of attorney-client privilege are fully applicable here. Huffstutler was, at minimum, an agent acting on behalf of legal counsel to AMC. As such, Huffstutler is subject to all the legal implications of the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. Conforti & Eisele, Inc. v. Div. of Bldg. & Constr. (1979), 170 N.J.Super. 64, 405 A.2d 487;…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Seattle Times Co. v. RhinehartSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. Louis KovelCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
- Snepp v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- In Re SawyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Juhasz v. Quik Shops, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1977
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Oasis West Realty v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- State Ex Rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas County Port AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- State ex rel. Leslie v. Ohio Housing Finance AgencyOhio Supreme Court · 2005
- Elite Auto Body LLC v. Autocraft Bodywerks, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 2017
- State v. BrunsonOhio Supreme Court · 2022
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.