Samaritan Foundation v. Goodfarb
Arizona Supreme Court
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
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- United States v. Louis KovelCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
- 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
- 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
- Wardleigh v. Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of WashoeNevada Supreme Court · 1995
- Keefe v. BernardSupreme Court of Iowa · 2009
- State v. FodorCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1994
- Smart Industries Corp., Mfg. v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1994
- Roman Catholic Diocese v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.