Legal Opinion

Mitchell v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1984No. S.F. 24727PublishedCited by 112 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BROUSSARD, J.

Petitioners, plaintiffs below, seek a writ of mandate ordering respondent superior court to vacate its order compelling plaintiff Bette Gae Mitchell to answer certain questions propounded to her by defendant real parties in interest at her deposition, which she declined to answer on instructions of counsel. The principal issues presented by this case are whether defendants’ questions seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege and, if so, whether plaintiff has waived that privilege in pursuing the present action. For reasons outlined herein, we will…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. People v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Molien v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Rodrigues v. StateHawaii Supreme Court · 1970
  5. City & County of San Francisco v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951

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

3Cited by112 opinions

  1. People v. GuruleCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  2. People Ex Rel. Deparment of Corporations. v. Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Roberts v. City of PalmdaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
  5. People v. GionisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995

107 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