Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Kirwan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• applying Connecticut law and does a survey of other states that also follow the same rule
• finding no undue delay or prejudice, even though the plaintiffs waited more than a year in making their motion, because the defendants “did not make any motion to dismiss or for summary judgment in the meantime”
• attempting to predict how Connecticut state courts apply the common interest doctrine
• “the Illinois Supreme Court accepted this strange theory,.... [and a] few other courts appear to have accepted this broad interpretation.”
• where the court held that “the cooperation clause does not imply a duty to produce documents protected by attorney-client privilege in a coverage dispute.”
• applies Connecticut law and does a survey of other states which also follow the same rule

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).