Legal Opinion

Samaritan Foundation v. Goodfarb

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided November 16, 1993No. CV-92-0282-PRPublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MARTONE, Justice.

This case requires us to define the nature and scope of the corporate attorney-client privilege. We necessarily examine the nature of the communication and the communicator. In the process, we reject the control group test as being both overin-clusive and underinclusive. Our conclusions focus more on the nature of the communication than on the status of the communicator. The relevant inquiry is: to which corporate employee communications does the privilege apply, not to which corporate employees does the privilege apply. We hold that all communications initiated by the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. United States v. Louis KovelCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
  4. Diversified Industries, Inc. v. The Honorable James H. Meredith, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of MissouriCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1978
  5. Radiant Burners, Inc., an Illinois Corporation v. American Gas Association, Peoples Gas Light and Coke CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1963

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

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. Wardleigh v. Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of WashoeNevada Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Keefe v. BernardSupreme Court of Iowa · 2009
  3. State v. FodorCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1994
  4. Smart Industries Corp., Mfg. v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1994
  5. Roman Catholic Diocese v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003

35 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