Continental Oil Company v. United States
Decision Date | 27 March 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 19044.,19044. |
Parties | CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
A. T. Biggers, Houston, Tex., Shimmel, Hill, Kleindienst & Bishop, and Donald D. Meyers, Phoenix, Ariz., Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Wallace L. Kaapcke, Thomas E. Haven, and James O'M. Tingle, San Francisco, Cal., and Ryley, Carlock & Ralston, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellants.
William H. Orrick, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Lionel Kestenbaum, Gerald Kadish, and Arthur J. Murphy, Jr., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before ORR, POPE and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges.
After this matter had been submitted, the court was of the view that the circumstances here were such as to require an immediate ruling. Accordingly this court stated the facts in the matter and announced its decision in a preliminary order reading as follows:
We now proceed to state the considerations which have led us to the conclusions above indicated.
Government counsel contend that the attorney-client privilege is not applicable here first, because the attorneys did not represent the witnesses from whom the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Nelson
...proposition, Mead Data Central, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (U.S.Ct.App.D.C.1977); Continental Oil Company v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1964); Schwimmer v. United States, 232 F.2d 855 (8th Cir. 1956); and United States v. Jacobs, 322 F.Supp. 1299 (C.D.......
-
Grand Jury Subpoenas, In re
...Court for the S. Dist. of W. Va., 238 F.2d 713, 719 (4th Cir. 1956); cf. United States v. Briggs, supra; Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347, 349 (9th Cir. 1964). Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 259-60, 77 S.Ct. 309, 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957). See Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 10......
-
U.S. v. McPartlin
...Chahoon v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. (21 Gratt.) 822 (1871); Schmitt v. Emery, 211 Minn. 547, 2 N.W.2d 413 (1942); Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (1964); Hunydee v. United States, 355 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1965); Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena, 406 F.Supp. 381, 387-389 (S.D.N.Y.1......
-
International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 363
...United States v. Hemphill, 369 F.2d 539 (4th Cir.1966) (order compelling identification of informers); Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir.1964) (order requiring production of documents for which attorney-client privilege was claimed); Hartley Pen Co. v. United State......
-
Deposing & examining the plaintiff
...The common interest doctrine, or joint defense doctrine, has long been recognized in the Ninth Circuit. See Continental Oil Co. v. U.S., 330 F. 2d 347 (9th Cir. 1964) (holding that counsel for two oil companies did not waive work product protection of memoranda regarding interviews with the......
-
Grand jury proceedings
..., 444 U.S. 833, 100 S.Ct. 65 (1979); Hyundee v. United States , 355 F. 2d 183 (9th Cir. 1965); Continental Oil Company v. United States , 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1964); Raytheon Co. v. Superior Court , 208 Cal. App.3d 683 (1989); Insurance Company of No. America v. Superior Court , 108 Cal. ......
-
Table of Cases
...§7:129 Continental Cas. Co. v. Dominick D’Andrea, Inc. 150 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1998), §4:142 Continental Oil Company v. United States , 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1964), §4:117.3 Continental Trend Resources, Inc. v. Oxy USA, Inc ., 810 F.Supp. 1520, 1523-24 (W.D. Okl. 1992), §7:168 Contractor’s L......
-
Discovery
..., 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir. 1987); Hunydee v. United States , 355 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1965); Continental Oil Company v. United States , 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1964); United States v. McPartlin , 595 F.2d 1321, 1336-37 (7th Cir. 1979). The privilege may include a possible future co-defendan......