19 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2021 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
MDA City Apartments v. DLA Pipergreen2 sentences2020See MDA City Apartments LLC v. DLA Piper LLP (US), 2012 IL App (1st) 111047, ¶¶ 15-16 ; Garvy v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 2012 IL App (1st) 110115, ¶ 35 . 2019See MDA City Apartments LLC v. DLA Piper LLP (US), 2012 IL App (1st) 111047, ¶¶ 15-16 ; Garvy v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 2012 IL App (1st) 110115, ¶ 35 . | 2 | 2 |
Danigeles v. Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulationgreen2 sentences2019See Danigeles v. Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, 2015 IL App (1st) 142622, ¶ 78 (recognizing that administrative agencies may establish standards of conduct for applying statutes through individualized administrative adjudications). ¶ 75 A fiduciary relationship may arise as a matter of fact where one party reposes trust and confidence in another, who thereby gains a resulting influence and superiority over the subservient party. 2019See Danigeles v. Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, 2015 IL App (1st) 142622, ¶ 78 (recognizing that administrative agencies may establish standards of conduct for applying statutes through individualized administrative adjudications). ¶ 75 A fiduciary relationship may arise as a matter of fact where one party reposes trust and confidence in another, who thereby gains a resulting influence and superiority over the subservient party. | 2 | 2 |
Bailey v. Meister Brau, Inc.green2 sentences2010Colo. 1986) (applying primarily the fiduciary-duty exception but also the crime-fraud exception in holding that officers’ communications with attorneys were not protected by the attorney-client privilege); Bailey v. Meister Brau, Inc., 55 F.R.D. 211, 213-14 (N.D. 2010See Bevill, 805 F.2d at 125 (finding former corporate officers' communications with attorney who represented the bankrupt corporation discoverable on the basis of the dual representation, but also citing a crime-fraud justification, because recognizing the officers' individual attorney-client privilege would be contrary to the public policy in favor of uncovering insider fraud); In re Diasonics Securities Litigation, 110 F.R.D. 570, 575-76 (D.Colo. 1986) (applying primarily the fiduciary-duty exception but also the crimefraud exception in holding that officers' communications with attorneys we | 2 | 2 |
cluster 479222green2 sentences2010See Bevill, 805 F.2d at 125 (finding former corporate officers' communications with attorney who represented the bankrupt corporation discoverable on the basis of the dual representation, but also citing a crime-fraud justification, because recognizing the officers' individual attorney-client privilege would be contrary to the public policy in favor of uncovering insider fraud); In re Diasonics Securities Litigation, 110 F.R.D. 570, 575-76 (D. 2010See Bevill, 805 F.2d at 125 (finding former corporate officers' communications with attorney who represented the bankrupt corporation discoverable on the basis of the dual representation, but also citing a crime-fraud justification, because recognizing the officers' individual attorney-client privilege would be contrary to the public policy in favor of uncovering insider fraud); In re Diasonics Securities Litigation, 110 F.R.D. 570, 575-76 (D.Colo. 1986) (applying primarily the fiduciary-duty exception but also the crimefraud exception in holding that officers' communications with attorneys we | 2 | 2 |
cluster 797356green2 sentences2010Accordingly, English common law held that “when a trustee obtained legal advice relating to his administration of the trust, and not in anticipation of adversarial legal proceedings against him, the beneficiaries of the trust had the right to the production of that advice.” Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 482 F.3d 225, 231 (3d Cir. 2007). 2010Mett, 178 F.3d at 1063-64 ; see Wachtel, 482 F.3d at 233 . | 2 | 2 |
In re Diasonics Securities Litigationgreen2 sentences2010See Bevill, 805 F.2d at 125 (finding former corporate officers' communications with attorney who represented the bankrupt corporation discoverable on the basis of the dual representation, but also citing a crime-fraud justification, because recognizing the officers' individual attorney-client privilege would be contrary to the public policy in favor of uncovering insider fraud); In re Diasonics Securities Litigation, 110 F.R.D. 570, 575-76 (D. 2010See Bevill, 805 F.2d at 125 (finding former corporate officers' communications with attorney who represented the bankrupt corporation discoverable on the basis of the dual representation, but also citing a crime-fraud justification, because recognizing the officers' individual attorney-client privilege would be contrary to the public policy in favor of uncovering insider fraud); In re Diasonics Securities Litigation, 110 F.R.D. 570, 575-76 (D.Colo. 1986) (applying primarily the fiduciary-duty exception but also the crimefraud exception in holding that officers' communications with attorneys we | 2 | 2 |
McCormick v. McCormickgreen2 sentences1998See McCormick v. McCormick, 180 Ill. 1998See McCormick v. McCormick , 180 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
MUELLER INDUSTRIES, INC. v. Berkmangreen2 sentences2012Id. at 469 , 340 Ill.Dec. 55 , 927 N.E.2d 794 . ¶ 16 As this court recently noted in Garvy v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 2012 IL App (1st) 110115, ¶ 35 , 359 Ill.Dec. 202 , 215, 966 N.E.2d 523, 536 , Illinois has not adopted the fiduciary-duty exception to the attorney-client privilege. [1] See also Mueller, 399 Ill.App.3d at 469 , 340 Ill.Dec. 55 , 927 N.E.2d 794 . 2012Id. at 469 , 340 Ill.Dec. 55 , 927 N.E.2d 794 . ¶ 16 As this court recently noted in Garvy v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 2012 IL App (1st) 110115, ¶ 35 , 359 Ill.Dec. 202 , 215, 966 N.E.2d 523, 536 , Illinois has not adopted the fiduciary-duty exception to the attorney-client privilege. [1] See also Mueller, 399 Ill.App.3d at 469 , 340 Ill.Dec. 55 , 927 N.E.2d 794 . | 1 | 3 |
Neade v. Portesgreen2 sentences2010Neade, 193 Ill.2d at 450 , 250 Ill.Dec. 733 , 739 N.E.2d 496 ("We decline to recognize a new cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against a physician for the physician's failure to disclose [financial] incentives * * *"). 2010Neade, 193 Ill.2d at 450 , 250 Ill.Dec. 733 , 739 N.E.2d 496 ("We decline to recognize a new cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against a physician for the physician's failure to disclose [financial] incentives * * *"). | 1 | 2 |
Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc.green1 sentence2021Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc., 163 Ill.2d 33, 53 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Garvy v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP
green
2 sentences2012Id. at 469 , 340 Ill.Dec. 55 , 927 N.E.2d 794 . ¶ 16 As this court recently noted in Garvy v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 2012 IL App (1st) 110115, ¶ 35 , 359 Ill.Dec. 202 , 215, 966 N.E.2d 523, 536 , Illinois has not adopted the fiduciary-duty exception to the attorney-client privilege. [1] See also Mueller, 399 Ill.App.3d at 469 , 340 Ill.Dec. 55 , 927 N.E.2d 794 . 2012Id. at 469 , 340 Ill.Dec. 55 , 927 N.E.2d 794 . ¶ 16 As this court recently noted in Garvy v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 2012 IL App (1st) 110115, ¶ 35 , 359 Ill.Dec. 202 , 215, 966 N.E.2d 523, 536 , Illinois has not adopted the fiduciary-duty exception to the attorney-client privilege. [1] See also Mueller, 399 Ill.App.3d at 469 , 340 Ill.Dec. 55 , 927 N.E.2d 794 . | 4 | 2012–2020 |
Waste Management, Inc. v. International Surplus Lines Insurance
green
2 sentences2012Under Illinois law, the attorney-client privilege protects “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.” Id. ¶ 15 The fiduciary-duty exception to the attorney-client privilege arose in the context of trust law, and was based on the principle that the beneficiary of a trust had a right to the production of legal advice rendered to the trustee relating to the administration of the trust. 2012Under Illinois law, the attorney-client privilege protects "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." Id. ¶ 15 The fiduciary-duty exception to the attorney-client privilege arose in the context of trust law, and was based on the principle that the beneficiary of a trust had a right to the production of legal advice rendered to the trustee relating to the administration of the trust. | 3 | 2012–2012 |
Schrager v. North Community Bank
green
2 sentences2021Additionally, fraud claims are subjected to a heightened pleading standard, requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence (Schrager, 328 Ill. 2021Additionally, fraud claims are subjected to a heightened pleading standard, requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence (Schrager, 328 Ill. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
United States v. Mett
green
2 sentences2010Mett, 178 F.3d at 1063-64 ; see Wachtel, 482 F.3d at 233 . 2010Mett, 178 F.3d at 1063-64 ; see Wachtel, 482 F.3d at 233 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Wolf v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2004Wolf, 107 Cal. App. 4th at 28-29 , 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 863 . 2004Wolf, 107 Cal. App. 4th at 28-29 , 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 863 . | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Fuller Family Holdings, LLC v. Northern Trust Co.
green
1 sentence2019Id. ¶ 43 Plaintiffs argue that the Fuller plaintiffs knew certain facts associated with their claim, but were unaware of the specific facts related to the guarantee’s provisions, placing them in a situation similar to plaintiffs. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation
green
1 sentence2012The United States Supreme Court recently discussed the history of the fiduciary-duty exception to the attorney-client privilege in American law in United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. ___ , 131 S. Ct. 2313 (2011). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Koen Book Distributors v. Powell, Trachtman, Logan, Carrle, Bowman & Lombardo, P.C.
green
1 sentence2012The court in Koen stated that the law firm could have either withdrawn or obtained the client’s consent “ ‘after full disclosure and consultation.’ ” Koen, -12- 212 F.R.D. at 286 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.