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.
18 California opinions name it 3 courts 1983–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
Transamerica Title Insurance v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2022Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1047, 1052 (Transamerica Title).) The scope of the waiver “is narrowly defined and the information required to be disclosed must fit strictly within the confines of the waiver.” (Transamerica Title, at p. 1052; see, e.g., Manela, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1146-1148 [waiver of privilege as to communications with two doctors did not waive the privilege as to communications with a third doctor on the same subject].) The application of these waiver principles is straightforward here. 2021Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1047, 1052 .) Evidence Code section 912, subdivision (a) provides that “the right of any person to claim [the] . . . lawyer-client privilege . . . is waived with respect to a communication protected by the privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to disclosure made by anyone. | 1 | 2 |
Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodigreen1 sentence2025Code, § 912 [“the right of any person to claim a privilege . . . is waived with respect to a communication protected by the privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to disclosure made by anyone”]; Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 306 [“The burden is on the [one claiming the deliberative process privilege] to establish the conditions for creation of the privilege”].) Plaintiffs also argue summarily that the “only purpose of the [] Declaration is to establish the moti | 1 | 1 |
Manela v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2022Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1047, 1052 (Transamerica Title).) The scope of the waiver “is narrowly defined and the information required to be disclosed must fit strictly within the confines of the waiver.” (Transamerica Title, at p. 1052; see, e.g., Manela, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1146-1148 [waiver of privilege as to communications with two doctors did not waive the privilege as to communications with a third doctor on the same subject].) The application of these waiver principles is straightforward here. | 1 | 1 |
Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2011Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 31 Cal.3d at pp. 787-790; see Pioneer, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 364 .) Evidence Code section 912, subdivision (a) provides that a person’s right to claim a statutory privilege, including the physician-patient privilege, is “waived with respect to a communication protected by the privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to disclosure made by anyone. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Floresgreen2 sentences2005The attorney-client privilege “is waived with respect to a communication protected by the privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication . . . .” (Ibid.; see People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1124 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 ].) Contrary to defendant’s contention, People v. Flores (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 559 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 546 ], does not help him. 2005The attorney-client privilege “is waived with respect to a communication protected by the privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication . . . .” (Ibid.; see People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1124 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 ].) Contrary to defendant’s contention, People v. Flores (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 559 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 546 ], does not help him. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Barnettgreen1 sentence2005The attorney-client privilege “is waived with respect to a communication protected by the privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication . . . .” (Ibid.; see People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1124 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 ].) Contrary to defendant’s contention, People v. Flores (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 559 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 546 ], does not help him. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Barnettgreen2 sentences2005The attorney-client privilege “is waived with respect to a communication protected by the privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication . . . .” (Ibid.; see People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1124 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 ].) Contrary to defendant’s contention, People v. Flores (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 559 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 546 ], does not help him. 2005The attorney-client privilege “is waived with respect to a communication protected by the privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication . . . .” (Ibid.; see People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1124 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 ].) Contrary to defendant’s contention, People v. Flores (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 559 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 546 ], does not help him. | 1 | 1 |
DuBois v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardgreen2 sentences2003Appeals Bd. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 382, 387 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 523 , 853 P.2d 978 ].) In examining the statutory language, we must consider “the context of the entire statute . . . and the statutory scheme of which it is a part. . . . ‘Moreover, the various parts of a statutory enactment must be harmonized by considering the particular clause or section in the context of the statutory framework as a whole. [Citations.]’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 388.) Section 910 et seq. defines and governs a group of particular privileges. 7 Subdivision (a) of section 912 lists eight of these privileges, and provides 2003Appeals Bd. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 382, 387 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 523 , 853 P.2d 978 ].) In examining the statutory language, we must consider “the context of the entire statute . . . and the statutory scheme of which it is a part. . . . ‘Moreover, the various parts of a statutory enactment must be harmonized by considering the particular clause or section in the context of the statutory framework as a whole. [Citations.]’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 388.) Section 910 et seq. defines and governs a group of particular privileges. 7 Subdivision (a) of section 912 lists eight of these privileges, and provides | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2003Consent to disclosure is manifested by any statement or other conduct of the holder of the privilege indicating consent to the disclosure ...” (Roberts v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 330, 343 [ 107 Cal.Rptr. 309 , 508 P.2d 309 ] [the waiver of a privilege must be a voluntary and knowing act done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences].) B. 2003Consent to disclosure is manifested by any statement or other conduct of the holder of the privilege indicating consent to the disclosure ...” (Roberts v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 330, 343 [ 107 Cal.Rptr. 309 , 508 P.2d 309 ] [the waiver of a privilege must be a voluntary and knowing act done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences].) B. | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. City of Palmdalegreen2 sentences2000(Evid.Code, § 953.) Legal opinion and advice given the client by counsel is a confidential communication. ( Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993) 5 Cal.4th 363, 371 , 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330 , 853 P.2d 496 .) The right to claim the privilege is waived "with respect to a communication protected by such privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to such disclosure made by anyone. 2000(Evid.Code, § 953.) Legal opinion and advice given the client by counsel is a confidential communication. ( Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993) 5 Cal.4th 363, 371 , 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330 , 853 P.2d 496 .) The right to claim the privilege is waived "with respect to a communication protected by such privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to such disclosure made by anyone. | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1993Evidence Code section 912, subdivision (a) states in relevant part that the attorney-client privilege “is waived with respect to a communication protected by such privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to such disclosure made by anyone.’’ 28 Relying primarily upon Simmons v. United States (1968) 390 U.S. 377, 393-394 [ 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, 1258-1259 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ] (hereafter Simmons), defendant argues that May-land’s testimony was coerced or compelled when defendant proffered it in order to protect his Fi 1993Evidence Code section 912, subdivision (a) states in relevant part that the attorney-client privilege “is waived with respect to a communication protected by such privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to such disclosure made by anyone.’’ 28 Relying primarily upon Simmons v. United States (1968) 390 U.S. 377, 393-394 [ 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, 1258-1259 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ] (hereafter Simmons), defendant argues that May-land’s testimony was coerced or compelled when defendant proffered it in order to protect his Fi | 1 | 1 |
People v. Santosgreen2 sentences1992(See People v. Santos, supra, 26 Cal.App.3d 397, 402-403 [conversation about destroying evidence was within the limitation on the marital privilege].) In addition, Evidence Code section 912 provides, in pertinent part, that “. . . the right of any person to claim a privilege provided by Section . . . 980 ... is waived with respect to a communication protected by such privilege, if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication.” Here the Fords were speaking very loudly to one another—loudly enough to be heard beyond the plexiglass which sep 1992(See People v. Santos, supra, 26 Cal. App.3d 397, 402-403 [conversation about destroying evidence was within the limitation on the marital privilege].) In addition, Evidence Code section 912 provides, in pertinent part, that "... the right of any person to claim a privilege provided by Section ... 980 ... is waived with respect to a communication protected by such privilege, if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication." Here the Fords were speaking very loudly to one another — loudly enough to be heard beyond the plexiglass which sepa | 1 | 1 |
People v. Linesgreen2 sentences1988(People v. Lines (1975) 13 Cal.3d 500, 514 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 531 P.2d 793 ]; City & County of S.F. v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 227 [ 231 P.2d 26 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1418 ].) 12 Evidence Code section 912, subdivision (a) provides in pertinent part that “the right. . . to claim a privilege provided by Section 954 (lawyer-client privilege) ... is waived with respect to a communication protected by such privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to such disclosure . . . .” 13 The prosecution’s exact statem 1988(People v. Lines (1975) 13 Cal.3d 500, 514 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 531 P.2d 793 ]; City & County of S.F. v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 227 [ 231 P.2d 26 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1418 ].) 12 Evidence Code section 912, subdivision (a) provides in pertinent part that “the right. . . to claim a privilege provided by Section 954 (lawyer-client privilege) ... is waived with respect to a communication protected by such privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to such disclosure . . . .” 13 The prosecution’s exact statem | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dare v. Board of Medical Examiners
green
2 sentences2016(See, e.g., Dare v. Board of Medical Examiners (1943) 21 Cal.2d 790 , 797 [ 136 P.2d 304 ].)" ( Gomez v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 293 , 301, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 808 , 278 P.3d 1168 .) The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege and Waiver under Evidence Code Section 912 "Subject to Section 912... the patient ... has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between patient and psychotherapist...." ( § 1014.) Section 912 provides in pertinent part as follows: "Except as otherwise provided in this section, the right of any person to cla 2016(See, e.g., Dare v. Board of Medical Examiners (1943) 21 Cal.2d 790 , 797 [ 136 P.2d 304 ].)" ( Gomez v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 293 , 301, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 808 , 278 P.3d 1168 .) The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege and Waiver under Evidence Code Section 912 "Subject to Section 912... the patient ... has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between patient and psychotherapist...." ( § 1014.) Section 912 provides in pertinent part as follows: "Except as otherwise provided in this section, the right of any person to cla | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Gomez v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2016(See, e.g., Dare v. Board of Medical Examiners (1943) 21 Cal.2d 790 , 797 [ 136 P.2d 304 ].)" ( Gomez v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 293 , 301, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 808 , 278 P.3d 1168 .) The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege and Waiver under Evidence Code Section 912 "Subject to Section 912... the patient ... has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between patient and psychotherapist...." ( § 1014.) Section 912 provides in pertinent part as follows: "Except as otherwise provided in this section, the right of any person to cla 2016(See, e.g., Dare v. Board of Medical Examiners (1943) 21 Cal.2d 790 , 797 [ 136 P.2d 304 ].)" ( Gomez v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 293 , 301, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 808 , 278 P.3d 1168 .) The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege and Waiver under Evidence Code Section 912 "Subject to Section 912... the patient ... has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between patient and psychotherapist...." ( § 1014.) Section 912 provides in pertinent part as follows: "Except as otherwise provided in this section, the right of any person to cla | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Manning
green
1 sentence2024“Waiver of the privilege occurs when the holder of the privilege has disclosed a significant part of the communication or consented to disclosure.” ( Nieves, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 431–432, italics added.) More specifically, “the right of any person to claim a privilege provided by … [section]f 1014 … is waived with respect to a communication protected by the privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, 17 Indeed, the main case Victoria relies on, People v. Manning (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 586 , itself noted that there are “exceptions to the presumption of implied findings to supp | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Nieves
green
1 sentence2024“Waiver of the privilege occurs when the holder of the privilege has disclosed a significant part of the communication or consented to disclosure.” ( Nieves, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 431–432, italics added.) More specifically, “the right of any person to claim a privilege provided by … [section]f 1014 … is waived with respect to a communication protected by the privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, 17 Indeed, the main case Victoria relies on, People v. Manning (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 586 , itself noted that there are “exceptions to the presumption of implied findings to supp | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Shadonna C.
green
1 sentence2022(In re Charlisse C., 45 Cal.4th at p. 159 .) The standard of review affords “considerable deference” to the trial court, and “[w]e presume 13 Evidence Code section 912 provides in part: “Except as otherwise provided in this section, the right of any person to claim [attorney-client privilege] . . . is waived with respect to a communication protected by the privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication . . . .” (Evid. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Espejo v. Copley Press, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022Code, § 912, subd. (a).) 24 that [it] properly applied the law and acted within its discretion unless [Thanasi] affirmatively shows otherwise.” (Espejo v. The Copley Press, Inc. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 329, 378 .) Thanasi’s failure to focus on the probate court’s findings and reasoning by itself allows us to conclude he has not met his appellate burden. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Gionis
green
2 sentences2001(Evid.Code, §§ 953, 954; People v. Hayes, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1265 , 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 211 , 989 P.2d 645 ; People v. Gionis, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 1207 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 456 , 892 P.2d 1199 .) The right to claim the privilege is waived "with respect to a communication protected by such privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to such disclosure made by anyone. 2001(Evid.Code, §§ 953, 954; People v. Hayes, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1265 , 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 211 , 989 P.2d 645 ; People v. Gionis, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 1207 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 456 , 892 P.2d 1199 .) The right to claim the privilege is waived "with respect to a communication protected by such privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to such disclosure made by anyone. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Rodriguez v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2001Consent to disclosure is manifested by any statement or other conduct of the holder of the privilege indicating consent to the disclosure, including failure to claim the privilege in any proceedings in which the holder has the legal standing and opportunity to claim the privilege." (Evid.Code, § 912; People v. Hayes, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1265 , 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 211 , 989 P.2d 645 .) However, waiver of the privilege as to one aspect of a protected relationship does not necessarily waive *385 the privilege as to other aspects of the privileged relationship. ( Rodriguez v. Superior Court, supra, 2001Consent to disclosure is manifested by any statement or other conduct of the holder of the privilege indicating consent to the disclosure, including failure to claim the privilege in any proceedings in which the holder has the legal standing and opportunity to claim the privilege." (Evid.Code, § 912; People v. Hayes, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1265 , 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 211 , 989 P.2d 645 .) However, waiver of the privilege as to one aspect of a protected relationship does not necessarily waive *385 the privilege as to other aspects of the privileged relationship. ( Rodriguez v. Superior Court, supra, | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Hayes
green
2 sentences2001(Evid.Code, §§ 953, 954; People v. Hayes, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1265 , 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 211 , 989 P.2d 645 ; People v. Gionis, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 1207 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 456 , 892 P.2d 1199 .) The right to claim the privilege is waived "with respect to a communication protected by such privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to such disclosure made by anyone. 2001(Evid.Code, §§ 953, 954; People v. Hayes, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1265 , 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 211 , 989 P.2d 645 ; People v. Gionis, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 1207 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 456 , 892 P.2d 1199 .) The right to claim the privilege is waived "with respect to a communication protected by such privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to such disclosure made by anyone. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Barber v. Municipal Court
green
1 sentence1989The word `persons' as used in this subdivision includes partnerships, corporations, associations and other groups and entities." [5] Barber v. Municipal Court, supra, 24 Cal.3d at page 751 . [6] Evidence Code section 912 states: "(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the right of any person to claim a privilege provided by Section 954 (lawyer-client privilege), 980 (privilege for confidential marital communications), 994 (physician-patient privilege), 1014 (psychotherapist-patient privilege), 1033 (privilege of penitent), 1034 (privilege of clergyman), or 1035.8 (sexual assault vic | 1 | 1989–1989 |
City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1988(People v. Lines (1975) 13 Cal.3d 500, 514 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 531 P.2d 793 ]; City & County of S.F. v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 227 [ 231 P.2d 26 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1418 ].) 12 Evidence Code section 912, subdivision (a) provides in pertinent part that “the right. . . to claim a privilege provided by Section 954 (lawyer-client privilege) ... is waived with respect to a communication protected by such privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to such disclosure . . . .” 13 The prosecution’s exact statem 1988(People v. Lines (1975) 13 Cal.3d 500, 514 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 531 P.2d 793 ]; City & County of S.F. v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 227 [ 231 P.2d 26 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1418 ].) 12 Evidence Code section 912, subdivision (a) provides in pertinent part that “the right. . . to claim a privilege provided by Section 954 (lawyer-client privilege) ... is waived with respect to a communication protected by such privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to such disclosure . . . .” 13 The prosecution’s exact statem | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Jones v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1983In arguing that the trial court erred in so restricting its interpretation of Evidence Code section 912, Owens relies on Jones v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 534 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 148 ]. 1983In arguing that the trial court erred in so restricting its interpretation of Evidence Code section 912, Owens relies on Jones v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 534 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 148 ]. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.