Holland v. Muscatine General Hospital

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “all papers” relied on in answering an entire set of interrogatories does not describe the documents with the required “reasonable particularity”
• declining to recognize privilege in action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and stating that \[t]he adequacy of the peer review investigation itself is in issue\
• declining to recognize privilege in action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and stating that “[t]he adequacy of the peer review investigation itself is in issue”
• “Disclosure of documents and information bearing primarily on employment issues does not materially conflict with the fundamental objective of promoting quality health care served by the peer review privilege.”
• plaintiff sought peer review records to prove her hostile work environment claim
• declining to recognize privilege in Title VII action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).