27 Utah 2d 310 - Jackson v. Kennecott Copper Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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. ““There is no settled understanding of what ‘good cause’ means; since the determination depends to a large extent upon the facts of each case, a wide latitude of discretion is necessarily vested in the trial judge. Although the ability of the movant to obtain the desired information by other means is relevant, the real question is whether the movant can obtain the facts without production of the documents.” It was said further in Jackson v. Kennecott, supra, at page 1256: “In the instant action, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by its determination that a showing of good cause had been made, since the documents sought all related to the subject matter of the interrogatories and the central issues of the action and were solely in the possession and/or knowledge of the defendant.” “In Radiant Burners, Inc. v. American Gas Association, 5 the court admonished: ‘Certainly, the privilege would never be available to allow a corporation to funnel its papers and documents into the hands of its lawyers for custodial purposes and thereby avoid disclosure. ‘In balancing the competing goals of the free and unobstructed search for the truth with the right and absolute necessity for confidential disclosure of information by the client to its attorney to gain the legal advice sought thereby, the courts will realize that they are not dealing with a blanket privilege. The limitation surrounding any information sought must be determined for each document separately considered on a ca”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 UT App 275 - Road Runner Oil, Inc. v. Board of Oil, Gas & Mining · Cowen v. Hughes

2. “cannot foreclose the discovery process by the simple expedient of funneling the matter into its counsel's custody”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gold Standard, Inc. v. American Barrick Resources Corp. · Munson v. Chamberlain

3. “strictly construed in accordance with its object,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Timmerman