Justice v. Southern Railway Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that documents which did not on their face contain requests for legal advice were nevertheless protected because they were compilations of facts for use by counsel in providing legal advice
• “[F]or the purposes of determining whether a conviction is more than ten years old, the question is whether ten years has expired at the time the witness testifies at trial.”
• “Hence, if the same or essentially similar documents would have been created whether or not in litigation was foreseen, it [cannot] fairly be said that they were created because of actual or impending litigation.”
• “Hence, if the same or essentially similar documents would have been created whether or not in litigation was foreseen, it [cannot] fairly be said that they were created because of actual or impending litigation.”
• materials that did not, on their face, disclose that the client sought or an attorney rendered specific legal advice privileged as the communications were intended to be confidential and were part of the process by which the client sought legal advice from counsel

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).