Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
39 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersvillegreen2 sentences2024Dist., 569 N.W.2d 125, 127 (Iowa 1997) (en banc); see also Horsfield, 834 N.W.2d at 463 (recognizing the City of Dyersville “properly asserted the attorney- client privilege”). 2024We extended this holding to documents broadly protected by the attorney–client privilege in Horsfield, where we held that Iowa Code section 622.10 protected emails exchanged with counsel for the City of Dyersville notwithstanding section 22.2’s disclosure requirement. 834 N.W.2d at 450–51, 463 (“[T]he [Open Records] Act does not affect other specific statutory privileges recognized by the legislature, such as the attorney-client privilege.”). | 2 | 2 |
Squealer Feeds v. Pickeringgreen2 sentences2018Id. at 684-85 (noting a withdrawal of the witness designation would "reestablish the attorney-client privilege"). 2004The attorney-client privilege protects against the disclosure of “ ‘[a]ny confidential communication between an attorney and the attorney’s client ... against the will of the client.’ ” Squealer Feeds v. Pickering, 530 N.W.2d 678, 684 (Iowa 1995) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Tensleygreen2 sentences2017See State v. Tensley, 249 N.W.2d 659, 661 (Iowa 1977). 1984State v. Tensley, 249 N.W.2d 659, 661-62 (Iowa 1977). | 2 | 2 |
Bengford Ex Rel. Bengford v. Carlem Corp.green2 sentences2015On the other hand, the work product concept refers to material prepared or acquired in anticipation of litigation not necessarily privileged but immune from discovery . . . .” (Citation omitted.)); Bengford v. Carlem Corp., 156 N.W.2d 855, 867 (Iowa 1968) (“[S]uch questions are not objectionable either as privileged or work product.”); Schaap v. Chi. & N.W. 2015On the other hand, the work product concept refers to material prepared or acquired in anticipation of litigation not necessarily privileged but immune from discovery....” (Citation omitted.)); Bengford v. Carlem Corp., 156 N.W.2d 855, 867 (Iowa 1968) (“[S]uch questions are not objectionable either as privileged or work product.”); Schaap v. Chi. & N.W. | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Rules of Professional Conductgreen2 sentences2010See Emle Indus., Inc. v. Patentex, Inc., 478 F.2d 562 , 572-73 (2d Cir.1973) ("[T]he client's privilege in confidential information disclosed to his attorney `is not nullified by the fact that the circumstances to be disclosed are part of a public record, or that there are other available sources for such information, or by the fact that the lawyer received the same information from other sources.'" (quoting Henry S. Drinker, Legal Ethics 135 (1953))); In re Rules of Prof'l Conduct & Insurer Imposed Billing Rules & Procedures, 299 Mont. 321 , 2 P.3d 806, 822 (2000) (holding rule of confidentia 2010See Emle Indus., Inc. v. Patentex, Inc., 478 F.2d 562 , 572-73 (2d Cir.1973) ("[T]he client's privilege in confidential information disclosed to his attorney `is not nullified by the fact that the circumstances to be disclosed are part of a public record, or that there are other available sources for such information, or by the fact that the lawyer received the same information from other sources.'" (quoting Henry S. Drinker, Legal Ethics 135 (1953))); In re Rules of Prof'l Conduct & Insurer Imposed Billing Rules & Procedures, 299 Mont. 321 , 2 P.3d 806, 822 (2000) (holding rule of confidentia | 2 | 2 |
Emle Industries, Inc. v. Patentex, Inc.green2 sentences2010See Emle Indus., Inc. v. Patentex, Inc., 478 F.2d 562 , 572-73 (2d Cir.1973) (“[T]he client’s privilege in confidential information disclosed to his attorney ‘is not nullified by the fact that the circumstances to be disclosed are part of a public record, or that there are other available sources for such information, or by the fact that the lawyer received the same information from other sources.’ ” (quoting Henry S. Drinker, Legal Ethics 135 (1953))); In re Rules of Prof'l Conduct & Insurer Imposed Billing Rules & Procedures, 299 Mont. 321 , 2 P.3d 806, 822 (2000) (holding rule of confidenti 2010See Emle Indus., Inc. v. Patentex, Inc., 478 F.2d 562 , 572-73 (2d Cir.1973) ("[T]he client's privilege in confidential information disclosed to his attorney `is not nullified by the fact that the circumstances to be disclosed are part of a public record, or that there are other available sources for such information, or by the fact that the lawyer received the same information from other sources.'" (quoting Henry S. Drinker, Legal Ethics 135 (1953))); In re Rules of Prof'l Conduct & Insurer Imposed Billing Rules & Procedures, 299 Mont. 321 , 2 P.3d 806, 822 (2000) (holding rule of confidentia | 2 | 2 |
Samaritan Foundation v. Goodfarbgreen2 sentences2009Id. at 880–81. 2009See Samaritan Found., 862 P.2d at 876 (“It is universally accepted that communications directly initiated by an employee to corporate counsel seeking legal advice on behalf of the corporation are privileged.”). | 2 | 2 |
Diversified Industries, Inc. v. The Honorable James H. Meredith, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missourigreen2 sentences2009Id. at 609 . 2009Cf. Diversified, 572 F.2d at 609 (material protected if “not disseminated beyond those persons who, because of the corporate structure, need to know its contents” (emphasis added)). | 2 | 2 |
In the Matter of Grand Jury Proceeding. Appeal of Marty Bartongreen2 sentences2008However, "[a] client does not lose the [attorney-client] privilege merely because his attorney serves a dual role." In re Matter of Grand Jury Proceeding, 68 F.3d 193, 196 (7th Cir.1995). 2008However, “[a] client does not lose the [attorney-client] privilege merely because his attorney serves a dual role.” In re Matter of Grand Jury Proceeding, 68 F.3d 193, 196 (7th Cir.1995). | 2 | 2 |
Bailey v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.green2 sentences2024Iowa has enshrined its attorney–client privilege in Iowa Code 16 section 622.10, and our caselaw recognizes that this provision effectuates a priv- ilege “of ancient origin.” Bailey v. Chi., Burlington & Quincy R.R., 179 N.W.2d 560, 563 (Iowa 1970). 1971Such prohibition shall not apply to cases where the party in whose favor the same is made waives the rights conferred.” In Bailey v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., Iowa, 179 N.W.2d 560 , filed September 2, 1970, supported by many cited authorities, we analyze and discuss the purpose, necessity and importance of the attorney-client privilege. | 1 | 3 |
Shook v. CITY OF DAVENPORT, IOWAgreen2 sentences2021Our law recognizes that a “confidential communication between an attorney and the attorney’s client is absolutely privileged from disclosure against the will of the client.” Fenceroy, 903 N.W.2d at 242–43 (citing Shook v. City of Davenport, 497 N.W.2d 883, 886 (Iowa 1993), abrogated on other grounds by Wells Dairy, Inc. v. Am. 2009“Any confidential communication between an attorney and the attorney’s client is absolutely privileged from disclosure against the will of the client.” Shook, 497 N.W.2d at 886 . | 1 | 3 |
Robbins v. IOWA-ILLINOIS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANYgreen2 sentences2015Co., 160 N.W.2d 847 , 855–56 (Iowa 1968) (“[T]he work product of an attorney is clearly distinguishable from the attorney-client privilege. 2015Co., 160 N.W.2d 847, 855-56 (Iowa 1968) (“[T]he work product of an attorney is clearly distinguishable from the attorney-client privilege. | 1 | 3 |
Walker v. County of Contra Costagreen2 sentences2021“If Defendants assert as an affirmative defense the adequacy of their pre-litigation investigation into Walker’s claims of discrimination, then they waive the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine with respect to documents reflecting that investigation.” Id. (emphasis added). 2018Colo. 2008) ("The Court agrees that to the extent that Defendants have asserted the Faragher / Ellerth affirmative defense, they have waived the protections of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine regarding investigations into complaints made by female employees."); Walker v. County of Contra Costa , 227 F.R.D. 529 , 535 (N.D. | 1 | 2 |
Upjohn Co. v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2009Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 390 , 101 S. Ct. 677, 683 , 66 L. 2009Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 390 , 101 S. Ct. 677, 683 , 66 L. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Craneygreen2 sentences1994Craney, 347 N.W.2d at 679 . 1988In State v. Craney, 347 N.W.2d 668 (Iowa 1984), the supreme court reviewed Alvarez and expressly rejected a “constitutionalized attorney-client privilege for a defendant’s communications to a mental expert” Id. at 677-78. | 1 | 2 |
Tausz v. Clarion-Goldfield Community School Districtgreen1 sentence2024Dist., 569 N.W.2d 125, 127 (Iowa 1997) (en banc); see also Horsfield, 834 N.W.2d at 463 (recognizing the City of Dyersville “properly asserted the attorney- client privilege”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Zolingreen1 sentence2022“It is the purpose of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege to assure that the ‘seal of secrecy’ between lawyer and client does not extend to communications ‘made for the purpose of getting advice for the commission of a fraud’ or a crime.” United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In Re BANKAMERICA CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION Petition of Bank of America Corporationgreen1 sentence2022Litig., 270 F.3d 639, 642 (8th Cir. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Grand Jury Investigationgreen1 sentence2020If the desired testimony is of marginal value, the grand jury can pursue other avenues of inquiry; if the testimony is thought sufficiently important, the grand jury can seek a judicial determination as to the bona fides of the witness’ Fifth Amendment claim . . . .”); In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 831 F.2d 225, 227, 228 (11th Cir. 1987) (holding “an attorney seeking to quash a subpoena must assert the attorney-client privilege on a document-by-document basis” and reversing district court order quashing grand jury subpoena); In re Grand Jury Investigation, 431 F. Supp. 2d 584, 592 (E.D. | 1 | 1 |
MATTER OF BEACH v. Shanleygreen1 sentence2020Instead, the attorney should be called upon to appear and assert the attorney-client privilege after hearing the question or questions addressed to him.” (Citation omitted.)); Beach v. Shanley, 465 N.E.2d 304, 307 (N.Y. 1984) (“To the extent that a subpoena seeks testimony, the assertion that the contemplated testimony is subject to a privilege will not usually justify quashing the subpoena. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena. Appeal of United States of Americagreen1 sentence2020If the desired testimony is of marginal value, the grand jury can pursue other avenues of inquiry; if the testimony is thought sufficiently important, the grand jury can seek a judicial determination as to the bona fides of the witness’ Fifth Amendment claim . . . .”); In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 831 F.2d 225, 227, 228 (11th Cir. 1987) (holding “an attorney seeking to quash a subpoena must assert the attorney-client privilege on a document-by-document basis” and reversing district court order quashing grand jury subpoena); In re Grand Jury Investigation, 431 F. Supp. 2d 584, 592 (E.D. | 1 | 1 |
Movants to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas v. Powersgreen1 sentence2020In that event, litigation must await such time as when the witness refuses to answer the question on the ground that privileged information is concerned and an attempt is made to compel a response.” (Citations omitted.)); Movants to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas v. Powers, 839 P.2d 655, 657 (Okla. 1992) (“We hold that assuming, but without deciding, that while such a First Amendment privilege may come into existence under particular facts, it does not authorize the quashing of these grand jury subpoenas. | 1 | 1 |
Hoffman v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc.green2 sentences2018Ind. June 2, 2009) (“[A] defendant may also waive the attorney-client privilege if it asserts its investigation as part of its defense.”); EEOC v. Outback Steakhouse of Fla., Inc., 251 F.R.D. 603, 612 (D. 2018Ind. June 2, 2009) ("[A] defendant may also waive the attorney-client privilege if it asserts its investigation as part of its defense."); EEOC v. Outback Steakhouse of Fla., Inc. , 251 F.R.D. 603 , 612 (D. | 1 | 1 |
| Harding v. Dana Transport, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
Reitz v. City of Mt. Julietgreen2 sentences2018Juliet, 680 F. Supp. 2d 888, 894 (M.D. 2018Juliet , 680 F.Supp.2d 888 , 894 (M.D. | 1 | 1 |
| Union County v. Piper Jaffray & Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Andrews v. Ridco & Twin City Fire Ins. Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Avgoustis v. Shinsekigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Johnny Lee Johnson, applicant-appellee/cross-appellant v. State of Iowa, respondent-appellant/cross-appellee.green | 1 | 1 |
| Foster v. Hillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gutshall v. New Prime, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Burton v. University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinicsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Smaysgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wemark v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Ianniellogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tahoe Regional Planning Agency v. Brian McKay Attorney General of the State of Nevadagreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Advisory Opinion No. 544 of the New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethicsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Freedman v. Coopergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Alpha Beta Co. v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hickman v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Robbins v. IOWA-ILLINOIS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANYgreen2 sentences2015Co., 160 N.W.2d 847 , 855–56 (Iowa 1968) (“[T]he work product of an attorney is clearly distinguishable from the attorney-client privilege. 2015Co., 160 N.W.2d 847, 855-56 (Iowa 1968) (“[T]he work product of an attorney is clearly distinguishable from the attorney-client privilege. | 1 | 3 |
| Brainerd Daily Dispatch v. Dehengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bernard M. Decker, United States District Judge v. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009We need not reach this issue, however, because we hold below that the memorandum was not protected by McFarland Clinic’s attorney-client privilege. 12 v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487 (7th Cir. 1970), aff’d by an equally divided court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S. Ct. 479 , 27 L. 2009We need not reach this issue, however, because we hold below that the memorandum was not protected by McFarland Clinic’s attorney-client privilege. 12 v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487 (7th Cir. 1970), aff’d by an equally divided court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S. Ct. 479 , 27 L. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Honorable Bernard M. Decker, United States District Judge
green
2 sentences2009In Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487 (7th Cir.1970), aff'd by an equally divided court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971), the Seventh Circuit rejected the “control group” test. 2009We need not reach this issue, however, because we hold below that the memorandum was not protected by McFarland Clinic’s attorney-client privilege. 12 v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487 (7th Cir. 1970), aff’d by an equally divided court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S. Ct. 479 , 27 L. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Kracht v. Perrin, Gartland & Doyle
green
1 sentence2020Kracht, 268 Cal. Rptr. at 640–41. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Blumenthal Investment Trusts v. City of West Des Moines
green
2 sentences2019Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we conclude the district properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on claims IV and VI to the extent those claims allege the defendants deprived the Blazek family of their substantive due process rights under article I, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution. “[U]nder substantive due process analysis, the state is 13 given great leeway in achieving its legitimate goals, particularly related to public safety.” Id. (citing Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 , 17–19 (1979)). 2019Situations that meet the shocks-the- conscience test include “outrageous utilization of physical force; state-sponsored imposition of uncalled-for embarrassment or ridicule; or intolerable, disreputable, and underhanded tactics that may arise from government action deliberately designed to penetrate the attorney-client privilege.” Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
MacKey v. Montrym
green
1 sentence2019Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we conclude the district properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on claims IV and VI to the extent those claims allege the defendants deprived the Blazek family of their substantive due process rights under article I, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution. “[U]nder substantive due process analysis, the state is 13 given great leeway in achieving its legitimate goals, particularly related to public safety.” Id. (citing Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 , 17–19 (1979)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| McGrath v. Nassau County Health Care Corp. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Wells Dairy, Inc. v. American Industrial Refrigeration, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Keefe v. Bernard green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Tate green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| City of Coralville v. Iowa District Court for Johnson County green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Dillon v. City of Davenport green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Sacramento Newspaper Guild, Local 92 v. Sacramento County Board of Supervisors green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| United States v. Wilfredo Alvarez Appeal of John A/K/A Jorge Martinez green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| State v. Mickle green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Dunn v. Commonwealth green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| State Ex Rel. Schuler v. Tahash green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.