Marshall v. F.W. Woolworth, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting the argument that questions asking the witness to state whether he had met with anyone or reviewed materials to prepare implicated the work-product doctrine and compelling the witness to answer
• “there [wa]s no question” that attorney’s opinion “regarding the patentability of . . . the inventions underlying the patents-in-suit” was “legal in nature” and protected by attorney-client privilege

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).