Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• Eureka and the attorney expressly understood there was to be an attorney-client relationship between them distinct from the one to which CTI was a party.
• Eureka and the attorney expressly understood there was to be an attorney-client relationship between them distinct from the one to which CTI was a party.
• “[I]t is essential that the trial court give sufficient indication of how it computed the amount so that the reviewing court can determine whether it is supported by the record.”
• “[I]t is essential that the trial court give sufficient indication of how it computed the amount so that the reviewing court can determine whether it is supported by the record.”
• in upholding privilege against claim of common interest, court emphasizes that “the communications sought here were made ... after the interests of [the parties] diverged,” and that plaintiff harbored a “reasonable expectation of confidentiality”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).