Skip to main content
D. Delaware· 5/26/1977

Hercules Inc. v. Exxon Corp.

Citations

  • 434 F. Supp. 136
  • 24 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1343
  • 196 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 401
  • 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15700

How courts have described this case

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

  • “If the primary purpose of a communication is to solicit or render advice on non-legal matters, the communication is not within the scope of the attorney-client privilege.”
  • first finding that defendant did not demonstrate substantial need or undue hardship to vitiate the immunity, then considering whether defendant showed a prima facie case of fraud to invoke the crime-fraud exception to vitiate the privilege
  • plaintiff required to respond “to the best of its ability”
  • an incidental request for business advice “does not vitiate the attorney-client privilege.”
  • attorney merely a conduit for such information to PTO
  • plaintiff who sued on Sea Waybill bound by its terms

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Caleb M. Wright

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

134 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Hercules Inc. v. Exxon Corp.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.