Search for: "District of Columbia v. Upjohn Co"
Results 1 - 18
of 18
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Sep 2012, 7:03 am
[2] Upjohn Co. v. [read post]
28 Dec 2017, 2:18 pm
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. [read post]
25 Mar 2014, 3:43 pm
The court contrasted the COBC investigation against the internal investigation in Upjohn Co. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2014, 2:30 pm
The district court based its decision in part on the ground that the internal investigation had been “undertaken pursuant to regulatory law and corporate policy rather than for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,” attempting to distinguish the ur-case in this area, Upjohn Co. v. [read post]
16 Jul 2014, 1:19 pm
It held that the defendants’ assertion of the attorney-client privilege was “materially indistinguishable” from the seminal case Upjohn Co. v. [read post]
2 Sep 2013, 5:18 am
’ Upjohn Co. v. [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 2:05 am
Sterling Drug, Inc., 416 F.2d 417, 426 (2d Cir. 1969).District of Columbia: McNeil Pharmaceutical v. [read post]
12 Feb 2009, 10:42 am
We've been keeping an eye on some interesting litigation in the District of Columbia, Iacangelo v. [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 9:55 am
In a qui tam case alleging fraud against government contractor Halliburton and related entities, a federal district court in the District of Columbia granted the relator’s motion to compel discovery of 89 documents related to an internal fraud investigation that were being withheld by the defendants on the basis of attorney-client privilege and protected work product. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 12:00 pm
The Court of Appeals found that KBR’s assertion of privilege was “materially indistinguishable” from the privilege assertion that the Supreme Court had upheld in the leading case in the area, the 1981 opinion in Upjohn Co. v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
App. 2003); Dole Food Co. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 10:37 am
Searle & Co., 567 A.2d 398, 400-01 (Del. 1989).District of Columbia: Mampe v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
Farnes, 697 So.2d 825, 827 (Fla. 1997); Upjohn Co. v. [read post]
8 Oct 2008, 11:50 am
Upjohn Co., 778 A.2d 829, 836-37 (Conn. 2001).District of Columbia: Dyson v. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 9:53 am
Pfizer, Inc., 712 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2013), Aetna, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 7:28 pm
Cir. 1988); Upjohn Co. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 3:18 pm
Brown v. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am
The first edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence [Manual] was published in 1994, a year after the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Daubert. [read post]
