Upjohn v. United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Upjohn v. United States | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||||||
| Argued November 5, 1980 Decided January 13, 1981 |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
| Holding | |||||||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||||||
| Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger Associate Justices: William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens |
|||||||||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||||||||
| Majority by: Rehnquist Joined by: Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, Burger (parts I, III) Concurrence by: Burger |
Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that lower-level employees could invoke attorney-client privilege.
The Court heard arguments on appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which had held that attorney-client privilege did not apply to communication between Upjohn's middle management officials. The Sixth Circuit had also ruled that the work-product doctrine did not apply to the tax summons the company had received as a result of some of its unlawful business practices.
In a unanimous 9-0 decision, Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court in which it reversed the Sixth Circuit's holding. The Supreme Court held that the communications of lower ranking employees was protected by attorney-client privilege when protection was necessary to defend against litigation. The Court also reversed and remanded the tax sumonses issue. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote a concurring opinion in which he expanded upon the scope of attorney-client privilege.
The Upjohn case is considered one of the leading cases on attorney-client privilege in the American legal system.
This article related to a U.S. Supreme Court case is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.[edit] External link
- ^ 449 U.S. 383 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
