Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Pilea, HLS '24 |

1 0

Back to briefs

Hickman v. Taylor

(1947)

Supreme Court of the United States - 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 329 U.S. 495, 91 L. Ed. 451, 67 S. Ct. 385, 1947 U.S. LEXIS 2966, SCDB 1946-035

tl;dr:

Discovery may not be used to give access to an attorney's privileged work-product.

Video Summary


Case Summary

In the 1947 case, Hickman v. Taylor, the Supreme Court made an important decision about civil litigation, discovery, and the work-product doctrine. The case involved an attorney, Fortenbaugh, who refused to share information he gathered while preparing for possible lawsuits after a tugboat accident. The plaintiff, Hickman, wanted access to Fortenbaugh's interviews with the accident's survivors, but Fortenbaugh said they were privileged and could not be disclosed.

The lower courts ordered Fortenbaugh to comply and held him in contempt when he refused, but the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court recognized the work-product doctrine, which protects an attorney's right to gather and produce information in anticipation of litigation privately. This protection helps maintain fairness and efficiency in the legal process and shields attorney's strategies from unwanted inquiries.

According to the Court, such information could be protected under Rule 26(b) and Rule 30(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allow courts to limit discovery or issue protective orders under certain circumstances. Further, a party seeking access to this information must prove necessity or justification, and even then, disclosure is limited to factual matters, not the attorney's thoughts or legal strategies.

This case established the work-product doctrine as a crucial principle in civil litigation and balanced the interests of facilitating discovery while preserving fairness and efficiency in the legal process.

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Hickman v. Taylor

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Hickman v. Taylor case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingHickman v. Taylor case brief facts & holding

Facts:JM Taylor (Tugboat) sank while towing a car float across...

Holding:The lawyer's notes about his interviews are privileged, as they...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Hickman v. Taylor case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Hickman v. Taylor | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Mr. Justice Murphy
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The legal case involves a dispute over the admissibility of materials collected by an adverse party's counsel during preparation for possible litigation. The District Court erred by ordering the production of privileged material without requiring the petitioner to demonstrate necessity for the production of the material. Written statements, private memoranda, and personal recollections prepared or formed by an adverse party's counsel in the course of his legal duties are not allowed under Rule 26 or any other rule dealing with discovery. The attorney-client privilege does not apply to certain documents, but the petitioner must demonstrate the necessity for the production of the material or show that denial of production would cause hardship or injustice.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Hickman v. Taylor case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurrence), author: Mr. Justice Jackson
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The legal case involves a demand for copies of statements taken from crews involved in an accident, which defendants and their counsel refused to answer, resulting in their commitment to jail for contempt. The court notes that while discovery should provide a party access to anything that is evidence in their case, it should not nullify the privilege of confidential communication between attorney and client. Requiring a lawyer to provide a written account of what witnesses have told them would be demoralizing to the legal profession and would put trials on a lower level than a "battle of wits." The court suggests that this practice would be harmful to the legal profession and should not be adopted.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Hickman v. Taylor case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Hickman v. Taylor case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Hickman v. Taylor

Chat for Hickman v. Taylor
brief-305
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.