Hickman v. Taylor¶
U.S. Supreme Court. (1947). Hickman v. Taylor.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Memoing
- Clinical practice. Progress notes and the chronological problem-oriented record carrying the clinician's in-flight reasoning — assessment, differential, plan — alongside the patient-state record. Legal practice. Attorney work product — research notes, strategy memos, internal deliberations — recognized as a distinct, valuable object and protected by privilege precisely because the reasoning trace matters.
This sourceU.S. Supreme Court decision establishing the attorney work-product doctrine, protecting an attorney's research notes, strategy memos, and internal deliberations from disclosure—a reasoning trace shielded so it can be candid enough to be useful.
- Clinical practice. Progress notes and the chronological problem-oriented record carrying the clinician's in-flight reasoning — assessment, differential, plan — alongside the patient-state record. Legal practice. Attorney work product — research notes, strategy memos, internal deliberations — recognized as a distinct, valuable object and protected by privilege precisely because the reasoning trace matters.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. The single citation of this work carries no recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:89e14a8a5505 · see in the full table