Hogan Transports, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

Fisher v. United States
425 U.S. 391 (1976) Cited 2,090 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that act of producing evidence may, in some circumstances, trigger Fifth Amendment safeguards
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,035 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
U.S. v. Constr. Prods. Research, Inc.
73 F.3d 464 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 408 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that order directing witness to testify before administrative agency could be appealed immediately without defiance and contempt
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
U.S. v. Int'l Bhd.
119 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 1997) Cited 229 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that an individual could not assert individual privilege even though the law firm failed to clarify that it represented only his employer, in violation of state rules of professional responsibility
Simon v. G.D. Searle Co.
816 F.2d 397 (8th Cir. 1987) Cited 266 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that risk management documents generated to keep track of, control, and anticipate the costs of the defendant's products liability litigation and which contained aggregate reserve information but no individual case reserves calculated by the defendant's attorneys were not protected by the work product doctrine because the risk management department was not involved in giving legal advice or in mapping litigation strategy in any individual case, because the aggregate reserve information served numerous business planning functions but did not enhance the defense of any particular lawsuit, and, critically, because business planning includes planning for litigation
U.S. v. White
970 F.2d 328 (7th Cir. 1992) Cited 148 times
Holding failure to timely assert attorney-client privilege for each specific communication or document constitutes waiver
Hercules Incorporated v. Exxon Corporation
434 F. Supp. 136 (D. Del. 1977) Cited 199 times
Finding that two litigations were closely related where they involved the same plaintiff and the same patent, such that “many of the issues were related to the one involved here”
SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp.
70 F.R.D. 508 (D. Conn. 1976) Cited 130 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that legal interests must be "demonstrably common" or the clients must have a "substantial" risk of shared exposure to justify privileged information-sharing
Bourne v. N.L.R.B
332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964) Cited 93 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

Hogan Transports, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

Holding that act of producing evidence may, in some circumstances, trigger Fifth Amendment safeguards

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

Holding that order directing witness to testify before administrative agency could be appealed immediately without defiance and contempt

Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

Holding that an individual could not assert individual privilege even though the law firm failed to clarify that it represented only his employer, in violation of state rules of professional responsibility

Holding failure to timely assert attorney-client privilege for each specific communication or document constitutes waiver

Finding that two litigations were closely related where they involved the same plaintiff and the same patent, such that “many of the issues were related to the one involved here”

Holding that legal interests must be "demonstrably common" or the clients must have a "substantial" risk of shared exposure to justify privileged information-sharing

In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.