Legal Opinion
Purdue University v. Michael A. Wartell
Indiana Court of Appeals
Decided March 24, 2014No. 79A02-1304-PL-342PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CRONE, Judge.
Case Summary
The question we address today is this: may a party be equitably estopped from asserting the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine? In this case, Purdue University promised Chancellor Michael A. Wartell that an independent investigator acceptable to him, who was preferably (but not necessarily) an attorney, would be appointed to investigate a complaint that he had filed against Purdue’s president, pursuant to specified procedures. Purdue then appointed an attorney acceptable to Wartell to investigate his complaint. In accordance with the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Sandra T.E. v. South Berwyn School District 100Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010
- State v. International Business MacHines Corp.Indiana Supreme Court · 2012
- Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1996
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Shawn Blount v. State of IndianaIndiana Supreme Court · 2014
- Mills v. Hausmann-McNally, S.C.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 2014
- City of Columbus v. Debra A. Londeree and Dan LondereeIndiana Court of Appeals · 2020
- Theodore Edward Rokita v. Barbara TullyIndiana Court of Appeals · 2024