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.
24 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio 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 |
|---|---|---|
Waldmann v. Waldmanngreen2 sentences2026"The burden of showing that testimony sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude it." Waldmann v. Waldmann, 48 Ohio St.2d 176, 178 (1976); see also Total Quality Logistics, L.L.C., 2022-Ohio-1440, at ¶ 22 (12th Dist.). {¶ 42} After a review of the record, we are unconvinced that the Village Defendants - 18 - Clermont CA2025-07-056 met their burden of establishing the applicability of the attorney-client privilege for all discussions held during the executive sessions at issue. 2022See Waldmann v. Waldmann, 48 Ohio St.2d 176, 178 , 358 N.E.2d 521 (1976) (“It is well-settled that the burden of showing that testimony [or documents] sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude it.”). | 6 | 17 |
Lemley v. Kaisergreen2 sentences2022Before July 1, 2020, this provision was found in Civ.R. 26(B)(6). -7- Clermont CA2021-04-012 embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one that limits the scope of discovery or that orders submission of the material under seal or that protects confidential "commercial information." The burden of showing that information "sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the parties seeking to exclude it." Lemley v. Kaiser, 6 Ohio St.3d 258, 263-264 (1983). {¶21} "Civ.R. 37 provides a mechanism by which discovery rules can be 2018He testified that he spoke with Detective Nixon about Walls, and admitted that after speaking with Detective Nixon, he contacted Walls. {¶ 66} "The burden of showing that testimony [should] be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the parties seeking to exclude it." Lemley v. Kaiser , 6 Ohio St.3d 258 , 263-264, 452 N.E.2d 1304 (1983). | 3 | 5 |
In Re Martin, Jr.green2 sentences2019“The burden of showing that testimony [or documents] sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude [them] * * *.” Waldmann v. Waldmann (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 176, 178 , 358 N.E.2d 521 , citing In re Martin (1943), 141 Ohio St. 87, 103 , 47 N.E.2d 388 . {¶48} In support of its argument that Crow’s statement is privileged, Silco relies on the case of In re Klenmann, 132 Ohio St. 187 , 5 N.E.2d 492 (1936), where the plaintiff was injured when his car was struck by an automobile driven by the defendant on behalf of his 2019“The burden of showing that testimony [or documents] sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude [them] * * *.” Waldmann v. Waldmann (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 176, 178 , 358 N.E.2d 521 , citing In re Martin (1943), 141 Ohio St. 87, 103 , 47 N.E.2d 388 . {¶48} In support of its argument that Crow’s statement is privileged, Silco relies on the case of In re Klenmann, 132 Ohio St. 187 , 5 N.E.2d 492 (1936), where the plaintiff was injured when his car was struck by an automobile driven by the defendant on behalf of his | 2 | 6 |
Total Quality Logistics, L.L.C. v. BBI Logistics, L.L.C.green1 sentence2026"The burden of showing that testimony sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude it." Waldmann v. Waldmann, 48 Ohio St.2d 176, 178 (1976); see also Total Quality Logistics, L.L.C., 2022-Ohio-1440, at ¶ 22 (12th Dist.). {¶ 42} After a review of the record, we are unconvinced that the Village Defendants - 18 - Clermont CA2025-07-056 met their burden of establishing the applicability of the attorney-client privilege for all discussions held during the executive sessions at issue. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Fisher v. Rose Chevrolet, Inc.green2 sentences2012Fisher v. Rose Chevrolet, 82 Ohio App.3d 520, 523 , 612 N.E.2d 782, 784 (1992). {¶9} “[T]he burden of showing that testimony [or documents] sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude [them.]” Peyko v. Frederick, 25 Ohio St.3d 164, 166 , -7- 495 N.E.2d 918 (1986). 2012Fisher v. Rose Chevrolet, 82 Ohio App.3d 520, 523 , 612 N.E.2d 782, 784 (1992). {¶9} “[T]he burden of showing that testimony [or documents] sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude [them.]” Peyko v. Frederick, 25 Ohio St.3d 164, 166 , -7- 495 N.E.2d 918 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Peyko v. Frederick
green
2 sentences2012Fisher v. Rose Chevrolet, 82 Ohio App.3d 520, 523 , 612 N.E.2d 782, 784 (1992). {¶9} “[T]he burden of showing that testimony [or documents] sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude [them.]” Peyko v. Frederick, 25 Ohio St.3d 164, 166 , -7- 495 N.E.2d 918 (1986). 2012Fisher v. Rose Chevrolet, 82 Ohio App.3d 520, 523 , 612 N.E.2d 782, 784 (1992). {¶9} “[T]he burden of showing that testimony [or documents] sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude [them.]” Peyko v. Frederick, 25 Ohio St.3d 164, 166 , -7- 495 N.E.2d 918 (1986). | 5 | 1999–2012 |
Roe v. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region
green
2 sentences2020Roe v. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, 122 Ohio St.3d 399 , 2009-Ohio-2973 , 912 N.E.2d 61, ¶ 29 ; Schlotterer at ¶ 13 . {¶18} “It is well-settled that the burden of showing that testimony sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude it.” Waldmann v. Waldmann, 48 Ohio St.2d 176, 178 , 358 N.E.2d 521 (1976); Moskovitz v. Mt. 2020Roe v. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, 122 Ohio St.3d 399 , 2009-Ohio-2973 , 912 N.E.2d 61, ¶ 29 ; Schlotterer at ¶ 13 . {¶18} “It is well-settled that the burden of showing that testimony sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude it.” Waldmann v. Waldmann, 48 Ohio St.2d 176, 178 , 358 N.E.2d 521 (1976); Moskovitz v. Mt. | 3 | 2019–2020 |
Hartzell v. Breneman
green
1 sentence2023Lemley v. Kaiser, 6 Ohio St.3d 258, 263-64 (1983). {¶ 25} Civ.R. 26, "essentially requires the construction of a privilege log." Hartzell v. Breneman, 7th Dist. No. 10 MA 67, 2011-Ohio-2472, ¶ 19 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Klemann
green
2 sentences2019“The burden of showing that testimony [or documents] sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude [them] * * *.” Waldmann v. Waldmann (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 176, 178 , 358 N.E.2d 521 , citing In re Martin (1943), 141 Ohio St. 87, 103 , 47 N.E.2d 388 . {¶48} In support of its argument that Crow’s statement is privileged, Silco relies on the case of In re Klenmann, 132 Ohio St. 187 , 5 N.E.2d 492 (1936), where the plaintiff was injured when his car was struck by an automobile driven by the defendant on behalf of his 2019“The burden of showing that testimony [or documents] sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude [them] * * *.” Waldmann v. Waldmann (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 176, 178 , 358 N.E.2d 521 , citing In re Martin (1943), 141 Ohio St. 87, 103 , 47 N.E.2d 388 . {¶48} In support of its argument that Crow’s statement is privileged, Silco relies on the case of In re Klenmann, 132 Ohio St. 187 , 5 N.E.2d 492 (1936), where the plaintiff was injured when his car was struck by an automobile driven by the defendant on behalf of his | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Covington v. MetroHealth System
green
1 sentence2018No. 05AP-640, 2006-Ohio-1347, ¶ 13 . {¶ 11} "In Ohio, the burden of showing that testimony or documents are confidential or privileged rests upon the party seeking to exclude it." Covington v. MetroHealth Sys., 150 Ohio App.3d 558 , 2002-Ohio-6629 , ¶ 24 (10th Dist.); see also Waldmann v. Waldmann, 48 Ohio St.2d 176, 178 (1976) ("It is well-settled that the burden of showing that testimony sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude it."). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Dispatch Printing Co. v. Recovery Ltd. Partnership
green
1 sentence2018No. 05AP-640, 2006-Ohio-1347, ¶ 13 . {¶ 11} "In Ohio, the burden of showing that testimony or documents are confidential or privileged rests upon the party seeking to exclude it." Covington v. MetroHealth Sys., 150 Ohio App.3d 558 , 2002-Ohio-6629 , ¶ 24 (10th Dist.); see also Waldmann v. Waldmann, 48 Ohio St.2d 176, 178 (1976) ("It is well-settled that the burden of showing that testimony sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude it."). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Boone v. Vanliner Insurance
green
2 sentences2004Co. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 209 , 210 , fn. 2. "`Its purpose is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.'" Id., quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States (1981), 449 U.S. 383 , 389 , 101 S.Ct. 677 . {¶ 8} The burden of proof rests with the party asserting the existence of privilege: It is well-settled that the burden of showing that testimony sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude 2004Co. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 209 , 210 , fn. 2. "`Its purpose is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.'" Id., quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States (1981), 449 U.S. 383 , 389 , 101 S.Ct. 677 . {¶ 8} The burden of proof rests with the party asserting the existence of privilege: It is well-settled that the burden of showing that testimony sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Upjohn Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences2004Co. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 209 , 210 , fn. 2. "`Its purpose is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.'" Id., quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States (1981), 449 U.S. 383 , 389 , 101 S.Ct. 677 . {¶ 8} The burden of proof rests with the party asserting the existence of privilege: It is well-settled that the burden of showing that testimony sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude 2004Co. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 209 , 210 , fn. 2. "`Its purpose is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.'" Id., quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States (1981), 449 U.S. 383 , 389 , 101 S.Ct. 677 . {¶ 8} The burden of proof rests with the party asserting the existence of privilege: It is well-settled that the burden of showing that testimony sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.