7 Cited authorities

Hickman v. Taylor
329 U.S. 495 (1947) Cited 6,489 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”
Hess v. Kanoski & Assocs.
668 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2012) Cited 162 times
Holding co-workers who did not receive bonus could not be liable for unjust enrichment
Diak v. Dwyer, Costello & Knox, P.C.
33 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 1994) Cited 66 times
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel production of the Defendant's entire tax returns, where the district court inspected the full returns in camera and concluded that the redacted information was immaterial
Womack v. State
738 N.E.2d 320 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 23 times
Finding sufficient evidence of marijuana possession where, during a pursuit on foot, an officer observed Womack reach into his pocket and toss what was later determined to be a packet of marijuana
Woodruff v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.
No. 1:12-cv-00859-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind. Apr. 22, 2013) Cited 10 times
No. 1:12-cv-00859-TWP-MJD 04-22-2013 RANDALL L. WOODRUFF Trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Jacob Key, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Mark J. Dinsmore ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S VERIFIED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [DKT. 36] This matter came before the Court on a Verified Motion for Protective Order filed by Defendant American Family Mutual Insurance Company [Dkt. 36]. American Family seeks a protective order to prevent the discovery of its claim file, reserve determinations
Symons Int'l Grp., Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
No. 1:01-cv-00799-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind. Jul. 15, 2015) Cited 3 times
Requiring plaintiff to acquire financial documents from financial institutions pursuant to account agreements
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 94,817 times 651 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

COX et al v. SHERMAN CAPITAL LLC et al

7 Cited authorities

Hickman v. Taylor

Hess v. Kanoski & Assocs.

Holding co-workers who did not receive bonus could not be liable for unjust enrichment

Diak v. Dwyer, Costello & Knox, P.C.

Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel production of the Defendant's entire tax returns, where the district court inspected the full returns in camera and concluded that the redacted information was immaterial

Womack v. State

Finding sufficient evidence of marijuana possession where, during a pursuit on foot, an officer observed Womack reach into his pocket and toss what was later determined to be a packet of marijuana

Woodruff v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.

Symons Int'l Grp., Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co.

Requiring plaintiff to acquire financial documents from financial institutions pursuant to account agreements

Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37