In Re Bieter Company

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the purpose of the communication or dissemination to the agent must be for the purpose of seeking legal advice
• providing that the attorney-client privilege “only protects disclosure of communications; it does not protect disclosure of the underlying facts by those who communicated with the attorney[.]”
• reasoning that the rules regarding the attorney-client privilege of corporations are no less instructive when applied to a partnership or some other client entity not an individual
• explaining that “state law is not entirely displaced from 17 federal arbitration analysis,” and “is applicable if that law arose to govern issues 18 concerning the validity, revocability, and enforceability of contracts generally” (emphasis 19 and citation omitted)
• finding 12 individual who attended meetings with counsel and received communications from 13 attorneys to be “functional employee”
• granting a writ of mandamus and sustaining invocation of attorney-client privilege by partnership; applying Upjohn to a person who, although not an employee of the partnership, was a consultant; reaching this result because: (1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).