TOBIN ET UX.

v.

TOMLINSON, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Citator

Cited By

• Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970)
  …e result by undertaking to determine the common law of privilege with little or no reference to state law. See, e.g., Natta v. Hogan, 392 F. 2d 686 (10th Cir.1968); Radiant Burners, Inc. v. American Gas Ass’n, 320 F. 2d 314 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 929, 84 S.Ct. 330, 11 L.Ed.2d 262 (1963); United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357 (D.Mass.1950). Even Baird v. Koerner, supra, which contains language to the effect that federal courts follow state privilege standards in every case…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Giulio Natta v. Zletz, 418 F.2d 633 (7th Cir. 1969)
  …37] rulings, this Court has inspected each of the impounded documents and concluded that the district court’s rulings are substantially correct. In Radiant Burners, Inc. v. American Gas Association, 320 F. 2d 314 (7th Cir. 1963), certiorari denied, 375 U.S. 929, 84 S.Ct. 330, 11 L.Ed.2d 262, we noted that “The attorneys’ work-product rule announced in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947), remains unimpaired and is something separate and apart from the attorney-client privileg…

  ← 1 / 2 →