Skip to main content
· 1/4/1952

Mattingly v. Boston Woven Hose & Rubber Co.

Citations

  • 12 F.R.D. 266
  • 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3551

How courts have described this case

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

  • rejecting joint attorney's argument that privileged communications from the joint representation may be withheld because the non-party joint clients have not consented to the disclosure

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Weinfeld

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.