United States v. Orene Parker Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• “[I]t is now well recognized that documents that serve a dual purpose are covered by the work product protection if they were produced with the motivating purpose for or because of anticipated litigation.”
• \it is now well recognized that documents that serve a dual purpose are covered by the work product protection if they were produced with the motivating purpose for or because of anticipated litigation.\
• first citing In re Shell Oil Refinery, 132 F.R.D. 437, 442 (E.D. La. 1990); and then citing Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Pure Air on the Lake Ltd. P’ship, 154 F.R.D. 202, 206-07 (N.D. Ind. 1993)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).