Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Riner V. Newbraugh: The Role Of Mediator Testimony In The Enforcement Of Mediated Agreements, Joshua S. Rogers
Riner V. Newbraugh: The Role Of Mediator Testimony In The Enforcement Of Mediated Agreements, Joshua S. Rogers
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Confidentiality: The Future Crime--Contraband Dilemmas, Deborah Abramovsky Touro College School Of Law
Confidentiality: The Future Crime--Contraband Dilemmas, Deborah Abramovsky Touro College School Of Law
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Attorney-Client Privilege - Corporations - Work Product Doctrine - Administrative Summonses, Dolores Jacobs Krawec
Attorney-Client Privilege - Corporations - Work Product Doctrine - Administrative Summonses, Dolores Jacobs Krawec
Duquesne Law Review
The Supreme Court of the United States, in a unanimous decision, has held that the control group test for determining the applicability of the attorney-client privilege in the corporate context is overly restrictive and that any future application of the privilege must be on a case by case basis. The Court also held that the work product doctrine is applicable to administrative summonses.
Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981).
Evidence--Attorney-Corporation Client Privilege, Thomas Edward Mchugh
Evidence--Attorney-Corporation Client Privilege, Thomas Edward Mchugh
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Evidence-Privilege-Extension Of Attorney-Client Privilege To Administrative Practitioners, Richard W. Pogue S.Ed.
Evidence-Privilege-Extension Of Attorney-Client Privilege To Administrative Practitioners, Richard W. Pogue S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
In an action for rescission for transfer of patent rights, for breach of warranty of title and fraud, a pretrial examination of defendant's agent, as one familiar with facts concerning the transfer, was ordered by the court. Defendant objected to certain questions on the ground that the agent was in the status of attorney to defendant and that the matters in question were confidential communications protected from disclosure by the common law and statutory attorney-client privilege. The agent was a patent agent duly registered and authorized to practice as such before the United States Patent Office, but was not admitted …