privilege immunity in Illinois

2004Consolidation Coal Co., 89 Ill. 2d at 117-18 , 432 N.E.2d at 256 .

2004Consolidation Coal Co., 89 Ill. 2d at 117-18 , 432 N.E.2d at 256 .

1978(In re Schwarz (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 334, 338 .) Rather, “[a]nswers may be compelled regardless of the privilege if there is immunity from federal and state use of the compelled testimony or its fruits in connection with a criminal prosecution against the person testifying.” ( Schwarz at 338 (quoting Gardner v. Broderick (1968), 392 U.S. 273, 276 , 20 L.

1978(In re Schwarz (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 334, 338 .) Rather, “[a]nswers may be compelled regardless of the privilege if there is immunity from federal and state use of the compelled testimony or its fruits in connection with a criminal prosecution against the person testifying.” ( Schwarz at 338 (quoting Gardner v. Broderick (1968), 392 U.S. 273, 276 , 20 L.

2026Ardisana, 342 Ill.

2026Id. at 386 . ¶ 25 In Ardisana, this court was reviewing a trial court’s denial of a privilege claim as to certain documents, which was based in part upon the fact that the defendant’s affidavits in the case failed to show that the documents in dispute were generated at a time when the peer-review process was ongoing.

2024The attorney-client privilege must “be strictly confined within its narrowest limits and limited solely to those communications which the claimant either expressly made confidential or which he could reasonably believe under the circumstances would be understood by the attorney as such.” Center Partners, Ltd., 2012 IL 113107, ¶ 32 .

2024However, because the privilege may bar “the discovery of relevant and material facts, it is an exception to the general duty to disclose and is interpreted narrowly.” Adler, 2013 IL App (1st) 121066, ¶ 41 .

2014App. 3d at 153. ¶ 15 Similarly, in People v. Campobello, 348 Ill.

2012Goldberg v. Astor Plaza Condominium Ass’n, 2012 IL App (1st) 110620, ¶ 78 .

1992(United States v. Nixon (1974), 418 U.S. 683, 710 , 41 L.

1992(United States v. Nixon (1974), 418 U.S. 683, 710 , 41 L.

1990Karsten, 157 Ill.

1978(See People v. Myers (1966), 35 Ill. 2d 311 , 220 N.E.2d 297 .) However, when the witness, as here, subsequently testifies giving evidence highly favorable to the prosecution, any inference prejudicial to the defendant that arose from the claim of the privilege is superseded by the damaging effect to the defendant of the testimony itself.

1978(See People v. Myers (1966), 35 Ill. 2d 311 , 220 N.E.2d 297 .) However, when the witness, as here, subsequently testifies giving evidence highly favorable to the prosecution, any inference prejudicial to the defendant that arose from the claim of the privilege is superseded by the damaging effect to the defendant of the testimony itself.

1976App. 2d 194, 199 ; Zeinfeld v. Hayes Freight Lines, Inc., 41 Ill. 2d 345 .) Likewise the forwarding of a code number by Bankers Life to MIB, all of whose members had a common business interest and access to information concerning insurability of applicants for insurance, comes within the privilege doctrine.

1975We have carefully examined and will comment on the authorities cited in claimant’s brief as follows: Stanley v. Taylor (1972) 4 Ill.App.3d 97 correctly states that Illinois courts have removed all distinctions between slander and libel, and that the same rules apply whether the offensive language is oral or written.

1975Claimant contends that the words "bad landlord” damaged his professional and business reputation which is unrelated to his conduct as a public official, or at least, not covered under the privilege rule in Times v. Sullivan (Supra).

1952Albers v. Lamson, 380 Ill. 35 , sustaining the exception to a criminal gambling provision (Ill.

1934People v. Cummings, 338 Ill. 636 ; People v. Barrett, 261 id. 232; Carle v. People, 200 id. 494.

1927It is not a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment, (Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525 , 40 Sup. Ct. 2,) nor does section 2 of article 4, quoted above, take from the several States the power to regulate the right to succession to property.

1927(Ferry v. Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway Co. 258 U. S. 314 , 42 Sup. Ct. 358.) Under the construction we have placed on section 28 there is no discrimination based on diversity of citizenship.

1925(People v. Owen, 154 Mich. 571 , 118 N. W. 590 .) That a confession is not rejected because of any connection with the privilege against self-crimination is shown by the fact that the aim of the confession rule is to exclude self-criminating statements which are false, while the privilege rule excludes all statements coming within it, whether true or false.

1925(People v. Owen, 154 Mich. 571 , 118 N. W. 590 .) That a confession is not rejected because of any connection with the privilege against self-crimination is shown by the fact that the aim of the confession rule is to exclude self-criminating statements which are false, while the privilege rule excludes all statements coming within it, whether true or false.

1904(People v. Cooper, 83 Ill. 585 ; Potwin v. Johnson, 108 id. 70; Bessette v. People, 193 id. 334.) Enactments which deny to the governing body of certain, only, of the cities and villages of the State power to adopt ordinances for the construction of local improvements except when petitioned so to do by the owners of property affected by the improvement, at the same time clothe the property owners in such cities and villages with a privilege and an immunity not possessed by the owners of property in the other cities and villages of the State, and are for that reason unconstitutional, if. local