Clarkson Industries, Inc. v. Price
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Deen, Presiding Judge.
Appellant relies on the "work product” exception to the otherwise broad scope of discovery envisioned by Code Ann. § 81A-126 (b) (1). The work product doctrine stems from Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U. S. 495 (67 SC 385, 91 LE 451), in which the United States Supreme Court refused to require discovery of statements of witnesses obtained by an attorney after a claim arose but prior to litigation. Under our former discovery law, Code Ann. § 38-2101 et seq., it was held that "work product” included oral statements taken by an attorney from witnesses. Setzers Super Stores of Ga.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Williamson v. LunsfordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
- Setzers Super Stores of Georgia, Inc. v. HigginsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1961
- Ford Motor Company v. HanleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- TRAVIS MEAT &C. CO. INC. v. AshworthCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1972
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Webb v. MurphyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
- Hanna Creative Enterprises, Inc. v. Alterman Foods, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
- Warmack v. Mini-Skools Ltd.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
- Scroggins v. Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy (In Re Kaleidoscope, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · 1981
- Southern Guaranty Insurance Co. of Georgia v. AshCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1989
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.