Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 207 SW3D 352 - Pope v. State

Pope v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
2
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

13 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth))

Relationships

Relies on Hickman v. Taylor · Ake v. Oklahoma · United States v. Nobles · Trimble v. Itz · Durflinger v. Artiles

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The scope of the attorney work-product doctrine is sometimes confused with that of the attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege is an evi-dentiary privilege and protects against the compelled disclosure of confidential communications. This privilege belongs to and protects the client. The attorney work-product doctrine, while not a true evidentiary privilege, belongs to and protects the attorney. Its purpose is to stimulate the production of information for trials, and it rewards an attorney’s creative efforts by giving his work product a qualified privilege from being shared with others. It is premised on the notion that an attorney should not be compelled to disclose the fruits of his labor to his adversary. Under Texas civil rules, material that reflects the attorney’s personal thought processes is “core work product” and receives absolute protection, while other materials, such as documents, reports, or memo-randa compiled by the attorney or his agents and communications made in anticipation of litigation or trial are “other work product” and receive qualified protection. While the work-product doctrine protects the communications of parties, attorneys, and agents, the underlying factual information is not protected. For example, descriptions of potential witnesses and statements that would reveal whether the party had spoken to potential witnesses are not work product and are discoverable. As Professor Dix has explained: if defense counsel’s efforts do no”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.