Legal Opinion
Lasky, Haas, Cohler & Munter v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 19, 1985No. B013120PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WOODS, P. J.
The question to be determined in this proceeding in mandate is whether an attorney’s “impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal research or theories,” generated in the process of assisting a client to act as a trustee but never communicated to the client, are privileged from discovery by trust beneficiaries who seek to remove the trustee for mismanagement.
The facts material to determination of the issues are relatively simple and not in dispute.
On November 14, 1983, Seth M. Hufstedler as guardian ad litem for Tara Gabriel Galaxy Gramaphone Getty (Tara), a beneficiary of…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Goodman v. KennedyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Greyhound Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Riggs National Bank of Washington, D. C. v. ZimmerCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1976
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Huie v. DeShazoTexas Supreme Court · 1996
- BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- Martin v. Valley National BankDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.California Supreme Court · 2000
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.California Court of Appeal · 1997
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.