3M CO. v. ENGLE

Nos. 2010-SC-000125-MR, 2010-SC-000163-MR.

328 S.W.3d 184 (2010)

3M COMPANY, Appellant, v. Hon. William ENGLE III, Judge, Perry Circuit Court, et al., Appellees. and Kentucky Mine Supply, et al., Real Parties in Interest. American Optical Corporation and 3M Company, Appellants, v. Delbert Miller, et al., Appellees.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

As Corrected December 27, 2010.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Adam Benjamin Shadburne , Byron N. Miller , Thompson Miller & Simpson PLC, Louisville, KY, Bryant Jonathan Spann , Allen Guthrie & Thomas, PLLC, Charleston, WV, for appellant 3M Company.

Carol Dan Browning , Julie Marie McDonnell , Robert Michael Connolly , Whitney Frasier Watt , Stites & Harbison, PLLC, Louisville, KY, for appellant/real party in interest American Optical Corp.

Hon. William Engle III , Judge, Perry Circuit Court, Hazard, KY, appellee.

Alva A. Hollon, Jr. , John Oaks Hollon , Sams & Hollon, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, James Douglas Holliday , Hazard, KY, for appellees Delbert Miller, et al.

Craig Robert Banford , James David Bolen, Jr. , Huddleston Bolen Beatty Porter & Copen LLP, Huntington, WV, for real party in interest Kentucky Mine Supply.

David Eric Lycan , William Harvey May , Hurt, Crosbie, May, PLLC, Lexington, KY, for real party in interest The Special Fund.

Milton Trent Spurlock , Phillips Parker Orberson & Moore, P.L.C., Robert Young Gwin , Gwin Steinmetz Miller & Baird, PLLC, Louisville, KY, for real party in interest Mine Safety Appliances Company.

Patrick W. Gault , Napier Gault Keith PLC, Louisville, KY, for real party in interest Mine Service Company, Inc.

Robert L. Whittaker , Department of Labor, Frankfort, KY, for real party in interest Workers' Compensation Fund.


Opinion of the Court by Justice SCHRODER.

Defendants/Appellants appeal from an order of the Court of Appeals issuing a writ of prohibition to prevent the deposition of the Plaintiffs'/Appellees' attorney in the underlying civil suit. We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in issuing the writ. The trial court did not act erroneously, and the Plaintiffs have waived attorney-client privilege with respect to the matters about which the attorney is to be deposed....

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases