McEachern v. Maples Concrete Products Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “Pennsylvania courts recognize selective waiver in the context of work product”
• contrasting the attorney-client privilege, which flows from confidential communication, to the attorney work product doctrine, which does not
• contrasting the attorney-client privilege, which flows from confidential communication, to the attorney work product doctrine, which does not
• “The anticipation of litigation part of the work-product doctrine is not an absolute requirement[.]”
• \The anticipation of litigation part of the work-product doctrine is not an absolute requirement[.]\
• the anticipation of litigation language “does not limit the doctrine to only materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. Rather, materials prepared in anticipation of litigation constitute an example of the doctrine’s coverage.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).