Morrow v. Brown, Todd & Heyburn

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure substantially codified the Hickman decision in what is now Rule 26(b)(3). Its counterpart in the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure, CR 26.02(3)(a), is patterned after the Federal Rule(4)”
• “We are of the view that the opinion work product sought to be discovered must be directed to the pivotal issue in the subsequent litigation and the need for the material must be compelling”
• “We are of the view that the opinion work product sought to be discovered must be directed to the pivotal issue in the subsequent litigation and the need for the material must be compelling”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State Ex Rel. Medical Assurance of West Virginia, Inc. v. Recht
  West Virginia Supreme Court· 2003-07-11· cited 101×
• Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P. v. Givaudan Flavors Corp.
  Ohio Supreme Court· 2010-09-28· cited 91×
• Epperson v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2006-02-23· cited 29×
• Primm v. Isaac
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2004-02-19· cited 19×
• O'CONNELL v. Cowan
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2010-12-16· cited 12×
• Dean v. Bondurant
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2006-06-07· cited 10×
• Hiatt v. Clark
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2006-07-05· cited 10×
• Univ. of Ky. v. Lexington H-L Servs., Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Kentucky· 2018-09-14· cited 7×
• Smith v. Scottsdale Insurance
  N.D. West Virginia· 2014-05-16· cited 6×