Kammerer v. Western Gear Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that California had an interest in punishing the defendant because the fraudulent conduct that caused the injury occurred in California
• citing, Victor v. Fanning Starkey Company, 4 Wash. App. 920, 486 P.2d 323 (1971)
• stipulation that defendant's attorneys would be called as witnesses held a waiver of attorney-client privilege permitting discovery of privileged documents
• Most authority holds that “observations by the lawyer that might be made by anyone, and which involve no communicative intent by the client, are not protected.”
• under the law of Washington, punitive damages are not allowed unless expressly authorized by the legislature.
• stipulation that defendant’s attorneys would be called as witnesses held a waiver of attorney-client privilege permitting discovery of privileged documents

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Kammerer v. Western Gear Corp.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Kammerer v. Western Gear Corp.
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1981-01-07· cited 21×