Legal Opinion
Emergency Care Dynamics, Ltd. v. Superior Court
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided February 4, 1997No. 1 CA-SA 96-0140PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FIDEL, Presiding Judge.
The rule of work-product immunity bars adversary discovery of a lawyer’s mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories concerning a pending or impending ease. But does the rule immunize a lawyer’s communications to an expert witness on a subject the expert will testify about at trial? And if the expert has been hired not only to testify, but also to help the lawyer prepare for trial, does this dual role immunize communications that would lack immunity if the expert were hired for testimony alone? These questions are presented in this special…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
- State v. MauroArizona Supreme Court · 1988
- Haworth, Inc. v. Herman Miller, Inc.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1995
- Dean v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court · 1958
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Park v. Montana Sixth Judicial District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1998
- Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission v. FieldsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
- Green v. NygaardCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2006
- American Family Mutual Insurance v. GrantCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
- Slade v. SchneiderCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2006
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.