green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
9.7 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2018–2020 · 2 courts ·
…ourts have repeatedly held that checks and bank records are not subject to the protection of the attorney-client privilege.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Yost v. Schaffner
ourts have repeatedly held that checks and bank records are not subject to the protection of the attorney-client privilege.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Yost v. Schaffner
ourts have repeatedly held that checks and bank records are not subject to the protection of the attorney-client privilege.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pales v. Fedor
ourts have repeatedly held that checks and bank records are not subject to the protection of the attorney-client privilege.
discussed
Cited "see"
Frederick B. Strothman v. Adam Gefreh, Richard Paynter, Arthur Bleecher, Carl Panzarella, Marvin Harmatz, Jack Bunten, John Wilcox
See Frommhagen v. Glazer, 442 F.2d 338 , 339— 40 (9th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1038 , 92 S.Ct. 711 , 30 L.Ed.2d 729 (1972); West v. Garrett, 392 F.2d 543, 544 (5th Cir.1968); Preble v. Johnson, 275 F.2d 275, 277-79 (10th Cir.1960); see also Chocallo v. Callaghan, 496 F.Supp. 1261, 1261-62 (E.D.Pa.1980).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re a Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum
See Securities and Exchange Commission v. First Security Bank of Utah, 447 F.2d 166, 167 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1038 , 92 S.Ct. 710 , 30 L.Ed.2d 729 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dulaney v. Municipal Court
(2×)
Otherwise, they admit the allegations contained in the petition. [3] Preliminarily, we must determine whether this is a proper case for extraordinary relief. (1) Where a criminal statute or ordinance sought to be enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional on its face, a petition for a writ of prohibition is an appropriate method of seeking relief. ( Dillon v. Municipal Court, supra, 4 Cal.3d 860, 866, fn. 6 ; Burton v. Municipal Court (1968) 68 Cal.2d 684, 687 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 721 , 441 P.2d 281 ]; Whitney v. Municipal Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 907, 911 [ 27 Cal. Rptr. 16 , 377 P.2d 80 ]; Hunter v…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. William Thomas Chitwood
See Barker v. Wingo, 442 F.2d 1141, 1142 (6th Cir. 1971) and cases cited therein, cert. granted, 404 U.S. 1048 , 92 S.Ct. 719 , 30 L.Ed.2d 729 (1972). 2) Jencks Act At trial the prosecutor refused to turn over certain FBI reports asserted by Chitwood to be producible under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 . 1 A defense motion for production of Jencks material imposes on the trial judge an affirmative duty to conduct a non-adversary hearing, out of the presence of the jury, to ascertain whether documents in the possession of the Government are Jencks Act “statements.” Campbell v. United St…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Municipal Court of East Los Angeles Judicial District, County of Los Angeles
v.
Perrine
v.
Perrine
No. 71-577.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 17, 1972.
404 U.S. 1038
Cited by 13 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Ohio Court of Appeals (2) · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eigh… (1)
Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.