| Revision as of 16:26, 18 May 2006 editPatchouli (talk | contribs)7,395 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:14, 3 July 2006 edit undoNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,486 edits Added some additional, basic materialNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''''Hickman v. Taylor''''' ( |
'''''Hickman v. Taylor''''' (1947) is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the ], which holds that that information obtained by ] for or in anticipation of ] may be protected from discovery under the ]. | ||
| The case arose from a maritime accident in which several people were killed. The lawyers for the ship owners hired a lawyer who took statements from the survivors. When lawyers for the plaintiffs sought copies of the statements, the ] ordered that the statements be turned over and that plaintiffs' attorney be imprisoned for ] until he complied. The U.S. ] for the ] reversed this ruling, and the Supreme Court upheld the Third Circuit. | |||
| The legal issue involved is the ]. | |||
| The Court's decision in the case was unanimous. The opinion of the Court was written by ] ], with a concurring opinion being filed by Justice ]. | |||
Revision as of 19:14, 3 July 2006
Hickman v. Taylor (1947) is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the work-product doctrine, which holds that that information obtained by attorneys for or in anticipation of litigation may be protected from discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The case arose from a maritime accident in which several people were killed. The lawyers for the ship owners hired a lawyer who took statements from the survivors. When lawyers for the plaintiffs sought copies of the statements, the District Court ordered that the statements be turned over and that plaintiffs' attorney be imprisoned for contempt until he complied. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed this ruling, and the Supreme Court upheld the Third Circuit.
The Court's decision in the case was unanimous. The opinion of the Court was written by Justice Frank Murphy, with a concurring opinion being filed by Justice Robert Jackson.