Hickman v. Taylor
- Decided
- January 13, 1947
- Docket
- 47
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,981 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that attorney’s notes of client interviews are not discoverable absent a showing of “necessity or justification” — Pacific Fisheries, Inc. v. United States (2008)
- holding that attorney’s notes of client inter- views are not discoverable absent a showing of “necessity or justification” — Pacific Fisheries v. United States (2008)
- holding that the work product protection for attorney's thoughts, mental processes and opinions are protected regardless of the discovery method — Federal Election Commission v. Christian Coalition (1998)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Murphy delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents an important problem under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to the extent to which a party may inquire into oral and written statements of witnesses, or other information, secured by an adverse party’s counsel in the course of preparation for possible litigation after a claim has arisen. Examination into a person’s files and records, including those resulting from the professional activities of an attorney, must be judged with care. It is not without reason that various safeguards have been established to preclude unwarranted excursions into the privacy of a man’s work. At the same time, public policy supports reasonable and necessary inquiries. Properly to balance these competing interests is a delicate and difficult task.
[*498] On February 7, 1943, the tug “J. M. Taylor” sank while engaged in helping to tow a car float of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad across the Delaware River at Philadelphia. The accident was apparently unusual in nature, the cause of it still being unknown. Five of the nine crew members were drowned. Three days later the tug owners and the underwriters employed a law firm, of which respondent Fortenbaugh is a member, to defend them against potential suits by representatives of the deceased crew members and to sue the railroad for damages to the tug.
Cite this
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.