green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
9.0 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. 5 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.
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…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kroft
v.
Cox
v.
Cox
No. 71-579.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 17, 1972.
Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.