In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that in-house counsel’s recollection of any facts learned during his internal investigation would be “so intertwined with mental impressions” as to amount to “opinion work product”
• observing that the actual disclosure of work product to a government agency does not waive protection as to all information related to or underlying the work product
• observing that the actual disclosure of work product to a government agency does not waive protection as to all information related to or underlying the work product
• availability of interviewed witness to be deposed undermined the necessity that a litigation adversary “invade the attorney’s files”
• “Generally, documents created as part of an internal investigation . . . are considered to be made in anticipation of litigation for the purposes of the work product doctrine.”
• “Generally, documents created as part of an internal investigation . . . are considered to be made in anticipation of litigation for the purposes of the work product doctrine.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. New Horizont, Inc.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2008-05-07· cited 40×
• Sampson v. School District of Lancaster
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2008-11-05· cited 12×
• Dempsey v. Bucknell University
  M.D. Pennsylvania· 2013-10-07· cited 12×
• In Re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2007-08-30· cited 7×
• Procter & Gamble Co. v. Stone Container Corp.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2007-08-30· cited 1×

Cites

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

• Upjohn Co. v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1981-01-13· cited 3,227×
• Trammel v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1980-02-27· cited 1,217×
• Shelton v. American Motors Corp.
  Eighth Circuit· 1986-12-02· cited 374×
• Sporck v. Peil
  Third Circuit· 1985-04-18· cited 325×
• Unnamed case
  First Circuit· 1994-08-17· cited 319×
• In Re Claus Von Bulow, Martha Von Bulow, by Her Next Friends Alexander Auersperg, and Annie Laurie Auersperg-Kneissl v. Claus Von Bulow
  Second Circuit· 1987-09-10· cited 300×
• In Re Grand Jury Investigation. Appeal of United States of America
  Third Circuit· 1979-06-01· cited 261×
• Unnamed case
  Fourth Circuit· 1997-02-06· cited 213×
• Hercules Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
  D. Delaware· 1977-05-26· cited 176×
• United States v. Taylor
  M.D. North Carolina· 1996-02-27· cited 167×
• In Re Martin Marietta Corporation, United States of America v. William C. Pollard
  Fourth Circuit· 1988-10-14· cited 151×
• Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corp., Inc. General Nutrition Corporation and General Nutrition Center, Inc.
  Third Circuit· 1982-02-08· cited 146×
• In Re: Cendant Corporation Securities Litigation Ernst & Young LLP
  Third Circuit· 2003-09-16· cited 134×
• United States v. (Under Seal)
  Fourth Circuit· 1984-11-16· cited 134×
• In Re Echostar Communications Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 2006-05-03· cited 124×
• CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 1962-04-27· cited 102×
• Lynn Martin, Secretary of Labor v. Bally's Park Place Hotel & Casino and Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission
  Third Circuit· 1993-02-12· cited 89×
• Gerling International Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Appeal of Gerling International Insurance Co
  Third Circuit· 1988-01-29· cited 81×
• In re Kidder Peabody Securities Litigation
  S.D. New York· 1996-05-16· cited 74×
• Rainey v. American Forest and Paper Ass'n, Inc.
  District of Columbia· 1998-10-19· cited 69×