United States v. Roxworthy

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that such documents do not lose their work product privilege “unless the documents ‘would have been created in essentially similar form irrespective of the litigation’ ”
• indicating that the work-product doctrine can apply when an attorney takes action to protect a client from future litigation about a particular transaction
• noting that having a specific claim in mind, supported by concrete facts which could likely lead to litigation, can constitute objectively reasonable anticipation of litigation
• concluding it was error for a lower court to rely on “a requirement that the primary or sole purpose of the [asserted work product document] be in preparation of litigation” in place of a dual purpose rule
• finding memos prepared analyzing legal arguments supporting and opposing specific tax positions to be protected work product
• stating \the IRS would appear to obtain an unfair advantage by gaining access to KPMG's detailed legal analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of [the taxpayer's] position. This factor weighs in favor of recognizing the documents as privileged.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).