Skip to main content
D.C. Circuit· 4/14/1998

In Re: Sealed Case

Citations

  • 141 F.3d 337
  • 329 U.S. App. D.C. 374
  • 1998 WL 146011

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that the Perlman doctrine does not apply when the party that is subject to a discovery order has the “requisite incentives (as well as the clear ability) to . . . force review [of that order] into the usual channel”
  • explaining that a lawyer is “normally duty-bound to assert” “the privilege of [their] client”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Williams, Henderson, Tatel

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases with this 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.