InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Hickman, Administrator, v. Taylor et al., Trading As Taylor & Anderson Towing & Lighterage Co., et al.

The Court recognized the work-product doctrine, which holds that information obtained or produced by or for attorneys in anticipation of litigation may be protected from discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

329 U.S. 495 · No. 47 · 1946 term · Vinson Court

Decided Jan 13, 1947 · argued Nov 13, 1946

Privacy · Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations

Majority opinion: Frank Murphy

The voteMajority

9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent

No dissent (9–0)

Affirmed. Hickman, Administrator, lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Hickman, Administrator, was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), is a seminal United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the work-product doctrine, which holds that information obtained or produced by or for attorneys in anticipation of litigation may be protected from discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court's decision in the case was unanimous.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1946 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianBlackMurphyRutledgeDouglasReedVinsonBurtonFrankfurterR. Jackson

Majority(9)

Dissent(0)

  • None.
Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Hickman, Administrator,Employee, or job applicant
Respondent
Taylor et al., Trading As Taylor & Anderson Towing & Lighterage Co., et al.Water transportation, stevedore
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Why it was taken
Federal appeals courts had ruled differently, and the question was important
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure, or relevant rules of a circuit court Judicial Code, and admiralty rules
Kind of law
Court Rules
Decided by
Statutory construction
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jan 13, 1947DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. Hickman, Administrator, lost.
  2. Nov 13, 1946ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently, and the question was important.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: reversed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

48 other argued cases since 1946 on freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations, newest first.

  1. United States v. Zubaydah142 S. Ct. 959Mar 3, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 959Privacy6–36–3 band

  2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club144 S. Ct. 777Mar 4, 2021 · 144 S. Ct. 777Privacy7–27–2 band

  3. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media139 S. Ct. 2356Jun 24, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 2356Privacy6–36–3 band

  4. Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.573 U.S. 134Jun 16, 2014 · 573 U.S. 134Privacy7–18–1 band

  5. Lawson v. FMR LLC571 U.S. 429Mar 4, 2014 · 571 U.S. 429Privacy6–36–3 band

  6. Mark J. McBurney, et al., Petitioners v. Nathaniel L. Young, Deputy Commissioner and Director, Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement, et al.569 U.S. 221Apr 29, 2013 · 569 U.S. 221Privacy9–0Unanimous band

  7. Schindler Elevator Corporation, Petitioner v. United States ex rel. Daniel Kirk563 U.S. 401May 16, 2011 · 563 U.S. 401Privacy5–36–3 band

  8. Glen Scott Milner, Petitioner v. Department of the Navy562 U.S. 562Mar 7, 2011 · 562 U.S. 562Privacy8–18–1 band

  9. Federal Communications Commission, et al., Petitioners v. AT&T Inc. et al.562 U.S. 397Mar 1, 2011 · 562 U.S. 397Privacy8–0Unanimous band

  10. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, et al., Petitioners v. Robert M. Nelson et al.562 U.S. 134Jan 19, 2011 · 562 U.S. 134Privacy8–0Unanimous band

  11. John Doe #1, et al. v. Sam Reed, Washington Secretary of State, et al.561 U.S. 186Jun 24, 2010 · 561 U.S. 186Privacy8–18–1 band

  12. Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, et al. v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia et al.542 U.S. 367Jun 24, 2004 · 542 U.S. 367Privacy7–27–2 band

  13. Intel Corporation v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.542 U.S. 241Jun 21, 2004 · 542 U.S. 241Privacy8–18–1 band
  14. National Archives and Records Administration v. Allan J. Favish et al.541 U.S. 157Mar 30, 2004 · 541 U.S. 157Privacy9–0Unanimous band
  15. Department of the Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs v. Klamath Water Users Protective Association532 U.S. 1Mar 5, 2001 · 532 U.S. 1Privacy9–0Unanimous band

  16. United States Department of Defense, et al. v. Federal Labor Relations Authority et al.510 U.S. 487Feb 23, 1994 · 510 U.S. 487Privacy9–0Unanimous band
  17. United States Department of Justice, et al. v. Vincent James Landano508 U.S. 165May 24, 1993 · 508 U.S. 165Privacy9–0Unanimous band

  18. United States Department of State v. Michael D. Ray et al.502 U.S. 164Dec 16, 1991 · 502 U.S. 164Privacy8–0Unanimous band
  19. John Doe Agency and John Doe Government Agency v. John Doe Corporation493 U.S. 146Dec 11, 1989 · 493 U.S. 146Privacy6–36–3 band
  20. United States Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts492 U.S. 136Jun 23, 1989 · 492 U.S. 136Privacy8–18–1 band
  21. Public Citizen v. United States Department of Justice et al.491 U.S. 440Jun 21, 1989 · 491 U.S. 440Privacy8–0Unanimous band
  22. United States Department of Justice et al. v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press et al.489 U.S. 749Mar 22, 1989 · 489 U.S. 749Privacy9–0Unanimous band
  23. Church of Scientology of California v. Internal Revenue Service484 U.S. 9Nov 10, 1987 · 484 U.S. 9Privacy6–0Unanimous band
  24. Central Intelligence Agency et al. v. Sims et al.471 U.S. 159Apr 16, 1985 · 471 U.S. 159Privacy9–0Unanimous band

  25. Federal Communications Commission et al. v. ITT World Communications, Inc., et al.466 U.S. 463Apr 30, 1984 · 466 U.S. 463Privacy9–0Unanimous band
  26. United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp. et al.465 U.S. 792Mar 20, 1984 · 465 U.S. 792Privacy9–0Unanimous band
  27. Federal Trade Commission et al. v. Grolier Inc.462 U.S. 19Jun 6, 1983 · 462 U.S. 19Privacy9–0Unanimous band
  28. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al. v. Abramson456 U.S. 615May 24, 1982 · 456 U.S. 615Privacy5–45–4 band
  29. United States Department of State et al. v. Washington Post Co.456 U.S. 595May 17, 1982 · 456 U.S. 595Privacy9–0Unanimous band
  30. Baldrige, Secretary of Commerce, et al. v. Shapiro, Essex County Executive455 U.S. 345Feb 24, 1982 · 455 U.S. 345Privacy9–0Unanimous band
  31. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Catholic Action of Hawaii/Peace Education Project et al.454 U.S. 139Dec 1, 1981 · 454 U.S. 139Privacy9–0Unanimous band
  32. Upjohn Co. et al. v. United States et al.449 U.S. 383Jan 13, 1981 · 449 U.S. 383Privacy9–0Unanimous band

  33. Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., et al.447 U.S. 102Jun 9, 1980 · 447 U.S. 102Privacy9–0Unanimous band
  34. GTE Sylvania, Inc., et al. v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc., et al.445 U.S. 375Mar 19, 1980 · 445 U.S. 375Privacy9–0Unanimous band
  35. Forsham et al. v. Harris, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al.445 U.S. 169Mar 3, 1980 · 445 U.S. 169Privacy7–27–2 band
  36. Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press et al.445 U.S. 136Mar 3, 1980 · 445 U.S. 136Privacy5–27–2 band

  37. Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve System v. Merrill443 U.S. 340Jun 27, 1979 · 443 U.S. 340Privacy7–27–2 band
  38. Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, Secretary of Defense, et al.441 U.S. 281Apr 18, 1979 · 441 U.S. 281Privacy9–0Unanimous band
  39. National Labor Relations Board v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.437 U.S. 214Jun 15, 1978 · 437 U.S. 214Privacy9–0Unanimous band
  40. Department of the Air Force et al. v. Rose et al.425 U.S. 352Apr 21, 1976 · 425 U.S. 352Privacy5–36–3 band
  41. Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, et al. v. Robertson et al.422 U.S. 255Jun 24, 1975 · 422 U.S. 255Privacy7–27–2 band
  42. Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp.421 U.S. 168Apr 28, 1975 · 421 U.S. 168Privacy7–18–1 band
  43. National Labor Relations Board et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.421 U.S. 132Apr 28, 1975 · 421 U.S. 132Privacy8–0Unanimous band
  44. Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., Inc., et al.415 U.S. 1Feb 19, 1974 · 415 U.S. 1Privacy5–45–4 band
  45. Environmental Protection Agency et al. v. Mink et al.410 U.S. 73Jan 22, 1973 · 410 U.S. 73Privacy5–36–3 band
  46. St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States368 U.S. 208Dec 11, 1961 · 368 U.S. 208Privacy6–36–3 band
  47. United States v. Reynolds et al.Landmark345 U.S. 1Mar 9, 1953 · 345 U.S. 1Privacy6–36–3 band

  48. United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, Warden, et al.340 U.S. 462Feb 26, 1951 · 340 U.S. 462Privacy6–27–2 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.