Legal Opinion
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 17, 1998PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Lewis R. Friedman, J.1
In this motion defendants (London Reinsurers) seek the return of certain documents that they inadvertently produced during the massive document production in this case. The London Reinsurers contend that the documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege or are attorney work product. There is also the claim that certain of the documents are irrelevant to this case. Plaintiff (Aetna) argues only that the documents are not privileged or entitled to some form of work product protection. Thus the court need not address the question of whether…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Spectrum Systems International v. Chemical BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Priest v. HennessyNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Rossi v. Blue Cross & Blue ShieldNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- People v. OsorioNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- In re the Appointment of a Guardian for Jacqueline F.New York Court of Appeals · 1979
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Boyd v. Comdata Network, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2002
- Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2016
- HSH Nordbank AG New York Branch v. SwerdlowDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- Allied Irish Banks, P.L.C. v. Bank of America, N.A.District Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission v. FieldsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.