Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. Phillips

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, “[s]ince police departments are under an affirmative duty, in the normal course of serving their public function,” to generate documents such as internal investigation reports, “the policies that inspire the work product doctrine are wholly inapplicable.”
• recognizing that memory is fresher “closer in time to the subject events.”
• stating that generalized claims of harm are insufficient to satisfy the objecting party’s burden
• indicating that the 16 official information privilege should protect, e.g., names of confidential informants in on-going criminal 17 investigations
• indicating that the official information privilege should protect, e.g., 3 names of confidential informants in on-going criminal investigations
• holding “[s]ince police departments are under 15 an affirmative duty, in the normal course of serving their public function,” to generate 16 documents such as internal investigation reports, “the policies that inspire the work product 17 doctrine are wholly inapplicable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).