Edwards v. Garrison

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that only factual portions of correspondence were requested and so the bank examination privilege did not apply
• finding that “even if portions of bank examination reports are privileged, the privilege is overridden by the public interest in disclosure”
• noting that the “overwhelming majority of courts that have considered the disclosure of reports of bank examiners have ruled in favor of their production”
• finding bank examination reports relevant to proof of defendants’ knowledge, misrepresentations, and scienter
• ordering production of bank examination reports in part because no adequate substitute existed
• finding supervisory reports relevant to “alleged misrepresentations” and “proving defendants’ scienter”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).