5 Virgin Islands opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virgin Islands 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 |
|---|---|---|
Browne v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2026Browne v. People, 56 V.I. 207, 235 (V.I. 2012) (collecting cases). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Grafgreen1 sentence2012Additionally, the burden of showing the existence of circumstances justifying the recognition of the attorney-client privilege rests with the party asserting the privilege, and “[bjecause it impedes full and free discovery of the truth, the attorney-client privilege is strictly construed.” See United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Capitol Surgical Supplies, Inc. v. Casale, 86 Fed. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Trujillogreen1 sentence2012See Chase v. Bowen, 183 Vt. 187 , 945 A.2d 901, 911 (Vt. 2008); People v. Trujillo, 144 P.3d 539, 543-45 (Colo. 2006); St. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Albert Samuel Fortna, Jr., James Lyne Harnage, George M. Sharer, and Christopher James Reogreen1 sentence2012See United States v. Hatcher, 323 F.3d 666 , 674 n.2 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Fortna, 796 F.2d 724, 732 (5th Cir. 1986)); In re Impounded Cases (Law Firm), 879 F.2d 1211, 1213 (3d Cir. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Impounded Case (Law Firm)green1 sentence2012See United States v. Hatcher, 323 F.3d 666 , 674 n.2 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Fortna, 796 F.2d 724, 732 (5th Cir. 1986)); In re Impounded Cases (Law Firm), 879 F.2d 1211, 1213 (3d Cir. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Teleglobe Communications Corp.green2 sentences2012In order for the attorney-client privilege to attach to a communication, “it must be ‘(1) a communication (2) made between privileged persons (3) in confidence (4) for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance for the client.’ ” In re Teleglobe Commc’ns Corp., 493 F.3d 345, 359 (3d Cir. 2007) (emphasis added) (quoting RESTATEMENT (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 68 (2000)). 2012In order for the attorney-client privilege to attach to a communication, “it must be ‘(1) a communication (2) made between privileged persons (3) in confidence (4) for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance for the client.’ ” In re Teleglobe Commc’ns Corp., 493 F.3d 345, 359 (3d Cir. 2007) (emphasis added) (quoting RESTATEMENT (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 68 (2000)). | 1 | 1 |
Capitol Surgical Supplies, Inc. v. Casalegreen1 sentence2012Additionally, the burden of showing the existence of circumstances justifying the recognition of the attorney-client privilege rests with the party asserting the privilege, and “[bjecause it impedes full and free discovery of the truth, the attorney-client privilege is strictly construed.” See United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Capitol Surgical Supplies, Inc. v. Casale, 86 Fed. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Michael Hatcher, United States of America v. Joseph Anthony Porrello, United States of America v. Angelo Porrellogreen1 sentence2012See United States v. Hatcher, 323 F.3d 666 , 674 n.2 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Fortna, 796 F.2d 724, 732 (5th Cir. 1986)); In re Impounded Cases (Law Firm), 879 F.2d 1211, 1213 (3d Cir. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
Chase v. Bowengreen2 sentences2012See Chase v. Bowen, 183 Vt. 187 , 945 A.2d 901, 911 (Vt. 2008); People v. Trujillo, 144 P.3d 539, 543-45 (Colo. 2006); St. 2012See Chase v. Bowen, 183 Vt. 187 , 945 A.2d 901, 911 (Vt. 2008); People v. Trujillo, 144 P.3d 539, 543-45 (Colo. 2006); St. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Ford Motor Companygreen1 sentence2007See id. (comparing In re Ford Motor Co., 110 F.3d 954, 963 (1997), permitting immediate appeal from an order allowing discovery of documents claimed to be protected by the attorney-client privilege because a delay in allowing the appeal would have permitted the very disclosure that the appellant claimed applicable rules precluded). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 795360green1 sentence2007See id. (comparing In re Ford Motor Co., 110 F.3d 954, 963 (1997), permitting immediate appeal from an order allowing discovery of documents claimed to be protected by the attorney-client privilege because a delay in allowing the appeal would have permitted the very disclosure that the appellant claimed applicable rules precluded). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. United Shoe MacHinery Corporationgreen1 sentence1997Olive, 23 V.I. at 172 (citing United States v. United Shoe Machinery, 89 F. Supp. 357, 358-59 (D. | 1 | 1 |
United States of America and Howard W. George, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service v. Donald E. Cotegreen1 sentence1990In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, 727 F.2d at 1356 (quoting United States v. Cote, 456 F.2d 142, 145 (8th Cir. 1972)).” Finally, Movant cites to the Court In Re Grand Jury Investigation, 723 F.2d 447 (6th Cir. 1983), presumably to establish the rule of decision governing the case, by indicating that according to Section 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, local law governs the attorney-client privilege, (Id. at 447 and 450-451), viz: 1. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virgin Islands. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Olive v. Isherwood
neutral
1 sentence1997Further, the district court in Olive v. Isherwood, Hunter & Diehm, 23 V.L 168, 656 F. Supp. 1171 (D.C.V.I. 1987), stated that the essential elements of the attorney-client privilege were as follows:" (1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication relates to the fact of which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers (c) for the purp | 1 | 1997–1997 |
In Re GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION
green
1 sentence1990In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, 727 F.2d at 1356 (quoting United States v. Cote, 456 F.2d 142, 145 (8th Cir. 1972)).” Finally, Movant cites to the Court In Re Grand Jury Investigation, 723 F.2d 447 (6th Cir. 1983), presumably to establish the rule of decision governing the case, by indicating that according to Section 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, local law governs the attorney-client privilege, (Id. at 447 and 450-451), viz: 1. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
In Re Shapiro
green
1 sentence1990In Re Shapiro, a witness before the February, 1974 Grand Jury No. 74 GJ 982, 381 F. Supp. 21 (1974), the essential elements of the attorney-client privilege were set forth as follows: “(1) where legal advice of any kind is sought, (2) from a professional legal advisor in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence, (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected, (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal advisor, (8) except the protection be waived”. 8 Wigmore, Evidence Section 2292. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.