§

Central Telephone Co.

343 N.L.R.B. 987 (N.L.R.B. 2004)
Central Telephone Co.

29 Cited authorities

  1. Upjohn Co. v. United States

    449 U.S. 383 (1981)   Cited 4,303 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Holding that communications between corporate counsel and a corporation's employees made for the purpose of rendering legal advice are protected by the attorney-client privilege

  2. Hickman v. Taylor

    329 U.S. 495 (1947)   Cited 6,587 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding in the context of the work product privilege that the adversary system requires a party's attorney be permitted to “assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference”

  3. U.S. v. Adlman

    134 F.3d 1194 (2d Cir. 1998)   Cited 649 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that documents are protected when "the document can fairly be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation"

  4. Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dept. of Energy

    617 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 1980)   Cited 1,202 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when agency auditors communicate information from third parties to the agency's regional counsel and ask for legal advice, the regional counsel's written responses containing "neutral, objective analyses of agency regulations" are not privileged

  5. In re Grand Jury Subpoena

    357 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 360 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a document is eligible for work-product protection if it "can be fairly said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation"

  6. Logan v. Commercial Union Insurance Company

    96 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 1996)   Cited 403 times
    Holding that "a mere allegation of bad faith is insufficient to overcome the work product privilege"

  7. Senate of Puerto Rico v. U.S. Dept of Justice

    823 F.2d 574 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 495 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the Government to invoke other FOIA exemptions after its initial reliance on 7 "collapse[d]," and leaving open the question of whether the conclusion of law-enforcement proceedings constitutes a "substantial change in the factual context of the case" sufficient to invoke an appellate court's section 2106 discretion to remand

  8. United States v. El Paso Co.

    682 F.2d 530 (5th Cir. 1982)   Cited 404 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding party made blanket assertion of privilege as to all documents and thus failed to particularize its assertion as to any specific document

  9. United States v. Davis

    636 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 411 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a document is deserving of work product protection "as long as the primary motivating purpose behind the creation of the document was to aid in possible future litigation."

  10. Binks Mfg. Co. v. Nat. Presto Indus.

    709 F.2d 1109 (7th Cir. 1983)   Cited 372 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there cannot be an implied warranty of merchantability between sophisticated business entities that have equal skill and knowledge concerning the transaction, particularly when a product is built and designed at the buyer's request and with the buyer's particular specifications since under those circumstances the product by definition no longer has an ordinary purpose

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 99,798 times   680 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37