green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
10.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2004 ·
…he privilege extends essentially only to the substance of matters communicated to an attorney in professional confidence.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1963 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1963
1994
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
in Re George Green and Garlan Green
But see Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633 , 637 even questions that related to whether (2d Cir.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 something occurred or not, would L.Ed.2d 499 (1963). go to the essence of the advice © 2015 Thomson Reuters.
cited
Cited "but see"
Huie v. DeShazo
But see Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 637 (2d Cir.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963).
examined
Cited "but see"
In Re Grand Jury Investigation. Appeal of Glen J. Schroeder, Jr
there can, of course, be no question that the giving of tax advice and the preparation of tax returns ... are basically matters sufficiently within the professional competence of an attorney to make them prima facie subject to the attorney-client privilege.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Newman v. State
(2×)
he privilege extends essentially only to the substance of matters communicated to an attorney in professional confidence.
discussed
Cited "see"
Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Educ.
See Colton v. U.S. , 306 F.2d 633 , 636-38 (2d Cir. 1962) (allowing inquiry into the nature of the attorney-client relationship if limited to "general responses, such as litigation, drafting of documents, tax advice, and the like"), cert. denied , 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see"
Public Citizen, Inc. v. United States Department of Education
See Colton v. U.S., 306 F.2d 633, 636-38 (2d Cir. 1962) (allowing inquiry into the nature of the attorney-client relationship if limited to “general responses, such as litigation, drafting of documents, tax advice, and the like”), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see"
St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Commercial Financial Corp.
See Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 636 (2d Cir.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963); Bailey v. Meister Brau, Inc., 55 F.R.D. 211, 214-15 (N.D.Ill.1972); 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, op. cit., p. 138.
discussed
Cited "see"
Orange County Publications, Inc. v. County of Orange
Indeed, "[a] communication concerning the fee to be paid has no direct relevance to the legal advice to be given”, but rather "[i]s a collateral matter which, unlike communications which relate to the subject matter of the attorney’s professional employment, is not privileged” (Matter of Priest v Hennessy, supra, 51 NY2d, at 69 .) Consequently, while billing statements which "are detailed in showing services, conversations, and conferences between counsel and others” are protected by the attorney-client privilege (Licensing Corp. v National Hockey League Players Assn., 153 Misc 2d 126,…
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Modell
See Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 636 (2d Cir.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963); Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 , 101 S.Ct. 677, 682 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Methodist Home v. Marshall
See Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 639-40 (2d Cir.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963); Jordan v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 701 S.W.2d 644, 648 (Tex.1985) (orig. proceeding).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Davis
First Chicago Int’l v. United Exchange Co. Ltd., 125 F.R.D. 55, 56 (S.D.N.Y.1989); see Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 637 (2d Cir.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963); Cuno, Inc. v. Pall Corp., 121 F.R.D. 198, 200 (E.D.N.Y.1988); see also United States v. Bein, 728 F.2d 107, 112 (2d Cir.1984) (similar formulation of factors); 8 J.
discussed
Cited "see"
Pereira v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A. (In re Al Nagelberg & Co.)
United States v. International Business Machines Corporation, 66 F.R.D. 206, 210 (S.D.N.Y.1974); United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357, 360 (D.Mass.1950); see Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 639 (2d Cir.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963).
cited
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Malone Freight Lines, Inc.
See Colton v. United States , 306 F.2d 633 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon John Doe, Esq. Richard Roe, Intervenor-Appellant v. United States
(2×)
The privilege first arose as an exception to the testimonial compulsion for every man's evidence and is today a common law privilege recognized under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 107 Although aware that defense counsel's presence at the grand jury to testify as to client identity and fee information is not within this privilege, In re Shargel, 742 F.2d 61, 62 (2d Cir.1984); see Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 637-38 (2d Cir.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963); United States v. Pape, 144 F.2d 778, 782 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 752…
cited
Cited "see"
Smith v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.
See Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 639 (C.A. 2, 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963); Haymes v. Smith, 73 F.R.D. 572, 577 (W.D.N.Y.1976).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Schenectady Savings Bank
See Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 640 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Loften
See Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 637 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States of America and Edmond J. Martin, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service v. Craig E. Davis, United States of America and Edmond Martin, Special Agent, Plaintiffs v. Stephen M. Orr
(2×)
See Colton v. United States, 2 Cir. 1962, 306 F.2d 633, 639-40 , cert. denied, 1963, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Davis
(2×)
See Colton v. United States, 2 Cir. 1962, 306 F.2d 633, 639-40 , cert. denied, 1963, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 .
cited
Cited "see"
Cohen v. Uniroyal, Inc.
See Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 637 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see"
Diversified Industries, Inc. v. The Honorable James H. Meredith, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
(2×)
See Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 636 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963); Bailey v. Meister Brau, Inc., 55 F.R.D. 211, 214-15 (N.D.Ill.1972); 8 Wright & Miller, op. cit., p. 138.
discussed
Cited "see"
Haymes v. Smith
See Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. den., 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963); Leonia Amusement Corp. v. Loew’s, 13 F.R.D. 438 (S.D.N.Y.1952); Buckley v. Vidal, 50 F.R.D. 271 (S.D.N.Y.1970); New York C.P.L.R. § 4503.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Grand Jury Appearance of Alvin S. Michaelson, Esquire
See Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 637-638 (2nd Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963); C.
cited
Cited "see"
Garfinkle v. Arcata National Corp.
See Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Schmidt
(3×)
United States v. Brown, N.D.Ill.1972, 349 F.Supp. 420, 429 ; accord, Colton v. United States, 2 Cir. 1962, 306 F.2d 633, 639 , cert. denied, 1963, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 .
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Schmidt
(3×)
United States v. Brown, N.D.Ill.1972, 349 F.Supp. 420, 429 ; accord, Colton v. United States, 2 Cir. 1962, 306 F.2d 633, 639 , cert. denied, 1963, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States of America and Martin Hoffenblum, Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service v. George Cromer
See Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 637-638 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963); C.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum
See Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Brown
See Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633 (2nd Cir. 1962) cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States of America and Howard W. George, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service v. Donald E. Cote
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 639 (2 Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963), which specifically withholds disclosure of memoranda and worksheets to the extent they contain confidential data not already published on the tax return.
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. French
See Colton v. United States, 306 F. 2d 633, 636-637 (2d Cir.), cert. den. 371 U. S. 951 ; United States v. United Shoe Mach.
cited
Cited "see"
James D. Harris v. United States
See, for example, Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633 (2 Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1962).
discussed
Cited "see"
Natta v. Hogan
See Colton v. United States, 2 Cir., 306 F.2d 633 , cert. denied 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 , an income tax prosecution where the lawyers made a blanket refusal to produce anything with relation to the income tax returns of the client. .
cited
Cited "see"
Independent Taxicab Operators' Ass'n v. Yellow Cab Co.
See Gold Fuel Service Inc. v. Esso Standard Oil Co., 306 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 506 , 9 L.Ed.2d 500 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see"
Leve v. General Motors Corp.
See generally, Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 ; United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357 (D.Mass.1950); cf. Garrison v. General Motors Corp., 213 F.Supp. 515 (S.D.Calif.1963); Georgia-Pacific Plywood Co. v. United States Plywood Co., 18 F.R.D. 463 (S.D.N.Y.1956); McCormick, EVIDENCE (1954) p. 203.
cited
Cited "see"
Zubrod v. Associated Metals & Minerals Trade Co.
See Solomon v. Bruchhausen, 305 F.2d 941 , 944 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 506 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1916 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Andimo Pappadio
(2×)
See Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633 (2 Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. American Optical Co.
See Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 639 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see"
Martin v. Celebrezze
See Pearman v. Ribicoff, 307 F.2d 573 (4th Cir. 1962), cert. den. 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 507 , 9 L.Ed.2d 500 (1963); Thomas v. Celebrezze, 217 F.Supp. 694 (S.D.W.Va.1963); Hicks v. Flemming, 194 F.Supp. 369 (E.D.Ill.1961); Davis v. Flemming, 186 F.Supp. 79 (S.D.W.Va.1960); and Bowling v. Flemming, 186 F.Supp. 421 (E.D.Tenn.1960).
cited
Cited "see"
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare v. Herbert E. Bolas
See Pearman v. Ribicoff, 4 Cir., 1962, 307 F.2d 573, 574 , cert. denied Pearman v. Celebrezze, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 507 , 9 L.Ed.2d 500 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Hanna
See Colton v. United States, *464 306 F.2d 633, 637 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S. Ct. 505 , 9 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ehrlich v. Grove
See also Morris v. State, 4 Md.App. 252, 255 , 242 A.2d 559, 561 (1968), quoting Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 637 , cert. denied 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963) (‘[T]he privilege extends essentially only to the substance of matters communicated to an attorney in professional confidence.’).” Newman, 384 Md. at 300-03 , 863 A.2d at 330-31 . 14 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated March 24, 2003 Directed to (A) Grand Jury Witness Firm and (B) Grand Jury Witness
Imwinkelried, The New Wigmore: Evidentiary Privileges § 2.3, at 108 (2002); 8 John Henry Wigmore, Evidence § 2290 (McNaughton rev. 1961); see also In re Colton, 201 F.Supp. 13, 15 (S.D.N.Y.1961), aff'd, 306 F.2d 633 (2d Cir.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Result Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Ferruzzi Trading USA Inc.
Compare Solomon v. Bruchhausen, 305 F.2d 941 (2d Cir.1962) (claim for abuse of process may not be asserted as cross-libel under old Admiralty Rules), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 506 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963), with Incas & Monterey Printing & Packaging, Ltd. v. M/V Sang Jin, 747 F.2d 958 , 965 & n. 19 (5th Cir.1984) (suggesting that Solomon rule against joinder of wrongful attachment counterclaim might no longer be valid under Supplemental Rules), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2361 , 86 L.Ed.2d 261 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Blanche v. Diners Club International, Inc.
See, e.g., Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 636-37 (2d Cir.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963); New York Civ.Prac.L. & R. (“CPLR”) § 4503; Root v. Wright, 84 N.Y. 72, 76 (1881) (“The rule that an attorney cannot disclose communications ... extends to communications in reference to all matters which are the proper subject of professional employment.”); People v. Shapiro, 308 N.Y. 453, 458 , 126 N.E.2d 559, 562 (1955); Matter of Reuter, 6 Misc.2d 411, 413-16 , 163 N.Y.S.2d 576, 580-84 (Sup.Ct.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Willis
See, e.g., Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 639 (2d Cir.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Four Seasons Solar Products Corp. v. Sun System Prefabricated Solar Greenhouses, Inc.
It is well settled that: [a] claim in the nature of malicious prosecution, which arises out of the bringing of the main action, generally cannot be asserted either as a compulsory or a permissive counterclaim, since such a claim is premature prior to the determination of the main action. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 1113.13 at 13-308 (2d ed. 1974); see also, Solomon v. Bruchhausen, 305 F.2d 941 , 943 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 506 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963) (claim for abuse of process depends upon outcome of original proceeding).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued on June 9 v. United States
However, the court in Davis recognized that "[s]ome courts have suggested, to the contrary, that tax return preparation and tax advice is sufficiently 'legal' in nature to trigger the privilege." Davis, 636 F.2d at 1043 ; see, e.g., Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 637 (2d Cir.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963); In re Shapiro, 381 F.Supp. 21, 22 (N.D.Ill.1974). 12 We need not resolve this issue here because the Smiths have failed to establish their entitlement to the privilege.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dorokee Co. v. United States
However, the court in Davis recognized that “[s]ome courts have suggested, to the contrary, that tax return preparation and tax advice is sufficiently ‘legal’ in nature to trigger the privilege.” Davis, 636 F.2d at 1043 ; see, e.g., Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 637 (2d Cir.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 505 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963); In re Shapiro, 381 F.Supp. 21, 22 (N.D.Ill.1974).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Elizabeth Forsling Harris v. Gloria Steinem, Patricia Carbine and Ms. Magazine Corp.
See also Solomon v. Bruchhausen, 305 F.2d 941 , 943 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 506 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gold Fuel Service, Inc.
v.
Esso Standard Oil Co.
v.
Esso Standard Oil Co.
No. 567.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 7, 1963.
Sam Weiss and Michael J. Pappas for petitioner., Burtis W. Horner for respondent.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Maryland (2) · Eleventh Circuit (1)
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.