Palmer v. Roginsky

How courts have described this case

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

• ordering the deponent lawyer to submit an affidavit for in camera review that describes the conversations he had with a third party to determine whether a common interest existed between the parties at the time of the communication
• “This ... standard ... coined in Duplan has been widely followed.”
• “Whether the legal advice was focused on pending litigation or on developing a patent program that would afford maximum protection, the privilege should not be denied when the common interest is clear”
• “To allow a litigant to probe beyond the assertion of privilege to the substance of the legal advice because the client takes that advice to heart and acts upon it would effectively circumvent the protection of the privilege.”
• “To allow a litigant to probe beyond the assertion of privilege to the substance of the legal advice because the client takes that advice to heart and acts upon it would effectively circumvent the protection of the privilege.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).