Legal Opinion
The Duplan Corporation v. Moulinage Et Retorderie De Chavanoz, Deering Milliken, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided March 24, 1975No. 74--1221PublishedCited by 97 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WIDENER, Circuit Judge:
This case presents the question whether an attorney’s opinion work product material developed in prior terminated litigation may properly become the subject of discovery in connection with subsequent litigation. The issue involves the work product doctrine of Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L. Ed. 451 (1947), and the scope of the protection afforded a lawyer’s “mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories” by Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1
We hold that such opinion work product material, as distinguished from…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- The Duplan Corporation v. Moulinage Et Retorderie De Chavanoz, Deering Milliken, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1973
- International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. United Telephone Co.District Court, M.D. Florida · 1973
- Bird v. Penn Central Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1973
- Bourget v. Government Employees InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1969
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by97 opinions
- United States v. Monroe Adlman, as Officer and Representative of Sequa CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- In Re MurphyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1977
- National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Murray Sheet Metal Company, Incorporated, and Arkwright Mutual Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1992
- Frontier Refining Inc. v. Gorman-Rupp Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
- Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1974
92 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.