Republic Gear Co. v. Borg-Warner Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
381 F.2d 551 · 1967
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 14 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 182 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2019 · most notably Fisher v. United States (1976), United States v. Nobles (1975)
69 federal appellate · 14 district · 12 state decisions
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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Hickman v. Taylor · Hanna v. Plumer · Cobbledick v. United States · Linkletter v. Walker
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 182 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] rule of privilege is unlike the ordinary rules of practice which refer to the processes of litigation, in that it affects private conduct before the litigation arises. Rules of privilege are not mere housekeeping rules which are rationally capable of classification as either substantive or procedural for purposes of applying the doctrine of [Erie]. Such rules affect people’s conduct at the stage of primary private activity and should therefore be classified as substantive or quasi-substantive.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“With reference to the documents shielded from discovery below as an attorney’s “work product,” we have found little authority as to whether the “work product” protection is restricted to materials prepared in connection with the very litigation in which the discovery is sought. The few lower court decisions in which disclosure was compelled dealt with material prepared for use in prior proceedings which had been fully completed before discovery was requested, see, e. g., Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 207 F.Supp. 407, 410 (M.D.Pa.1962); Tobacco & Allied Stocks, Inc. v. Transamerica Corp., 16 F.R.D. 534, 537 (D.Del.1954). Those cases are thus clearly distinguishable from the present case, for here the broad purpose of the rule which is designed to encourage effective legal representation by removing counsel's fear that his thoughts and information will be invaded by his adversary if he records them would be defeated if Republic could gain access to Nattier’s files by proceeding against a party Nattier did not professionally represent but nevertheless a party involved in the same transaction in which Nattier’s former clients were involved. And here, of course, Nattier’s former clients remain suitable. Id. at 557 (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate, and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not (d) for the purpose of committing a crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been (a) claimed, and (b) not waived by the client.”
1 later decision 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.