← All Authorities
United States Leading Case litigation privilege

Hickman v Taylor

329 U.S. 495 (1947)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year1947
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Attorney work product is qualifiedly protected from discovery, with opinion work product receiving near-absolute protection under federal procedure.

Key Principle

Attorney work product is qualifiedly protected from discovery; opinion work product receives near-absolute protection.

Area of Law

procedure

Related Cases

Getswift Ltd v Webb (2022) 276 CLR 553

High Court of Australia held there is no power to make a common fund order in favour of litigation funders at the interlocutory stage of a class action.

UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77

Anshun estoppel bars relitigation where it was unreasonable not to raise the issue in earlier proceedings; re-litigation may also constitute abuse of process.

Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478

High Court of Australia held the reflective loss principle (Prudential Assurance rule) does not apply in Australia, permitting shareholders to recover losses independently of the company.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Hickman v Taylor and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Hickman v Taylor