Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 177 FRD 1 - Evans v. Atwood

Evans v. Atwood’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
April 2023
most recently cited

17 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently April 2023

17 district · 1 state decisions

1201997200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Hickman v. Taylor · Upjohn Company v. United States · Mead Data Central, Inc. v. United States Department of Air Force · Coastal States Gas Corporation v. Department of Energy · Jordan v. United States Department of Justice

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “At the risk of stating the obvious (which generally becomes obvious only after it has been stated), the concept of “in anticipation of litigation” contains two related, but nevertheless distinct, concepts. One is temporal. The other is motivational. To be “in anticipation of’ litigation, a document must have been prepared before or during the litigation. That temporal element, standing alone, however, is not sufficient. The document or material must have also been prepared for litigation and not for some other purpose. It is the second concept that is determinative for the work-product protection. Thus, materials may be prepared before or when litigation is imminent or pending without necessarily having been prepared “in anticipation” of litigation from a motivational point of view.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The general rule in the federal courts is that identifying facts about the client, or the scope or objective of the employment, are not treated as confidential communications to which the privilege applies.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “circulating truly confidential information among concerned officials does not defeat the privilege since all the recipients shared the attorney-client privilege with each other”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.