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.
14 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1972–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strong v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Strong v. State, 773 S.W.2d 543, 547 (Tex. Crim. 2005Strong v. State , 773 S.W.2d 543, 547 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Sterling Drilling Co. v. Spectorgreen2 sentences1992See, e.g., Sterling Drilling Co. v. Spector, 761 S.W.2d 74, 76 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1988, orig. proceeding) (witness statements given to a lawyer were not protected under the lawyer-client privilege). 1992See, e.g., Sterling Drilling Co. v. Spector, 761 S.W.2d 74, 76 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1988, orig. proceeding) (witness statements given to a lawyer were not protected under the lawyer-client privilege). | 2 | 2 |
In re M-I L.L.C.green2 sentences2017In re M-I L.L.C., 2016 WL 2981342, at *7 , 505 S.W.3d 569, 579-80 (Tex. 2016); see Republic Ins. 2017In re M-I L.L.C., 2016 WL 2981342, at *7 , 505 S.W.3d 569, 579-80 (Tex. 2016); see Republic Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Sanchez v. Stategreen1 sentence2015In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (attorney-client privilege); Ex parte Miles, 359 S.W.3d 647 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) . (privilege derived from the work-product doctrine); Sanchez v. State, 365 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) ("while district court judges are allowed to exchange benches without geographical restrictions, the Legislature - has not extended that same privilege to statutory county court judges.”); Vennus v. State, 282 S.W.3d 70 , 72 n.l (Tex.Crim.App.2009) ’ ("except with respect to privileges, the rules of evidence do not apply to suppression hear- tags.”); Lander | 1 | 1 |
Chastain v. Kooncegreen1 sentence2015See Chastain v. the Perry Homes vice president during contract Koonce. 700 S. W.2d 579 . 581 (Tex.l985) (purchasers negotiations with Wimpey likely are protected by the oflots, who complained of misrepresentations relating lawyer-client privilege. | 1 | 1 |
Huie v. DeShazogreen1 sentence2015The lawyer-client privilege is intended to allow “unrestrained communication and contact between the lawyer and clieint in all matters in which the lawyer’s *906 professional advice or services are sought, without fear that these confidential communications will be disclosed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in any legal proceeding.” Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920, 922 (Tex.1996) (orig.proceeding) (quoting West v. Solito, 563 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex.1978)). | 1 | 1 |
West v. Solitogreen1 sentence2015The lawyer-client privilege is intended to allow “unrestrained communication and contact between the lawyer and clieint in all matters in which the lawyer’s *906 professional advice or services are sought, without fear that these confidential communications will be disclosed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in any legal proceeding.” Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920, 922 (Tex.1996) (orig.proceeding) (quoting West v. Solito, 563 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex.1978)). | 1 | 1 |
Republic Insurance Co. v. Davisgreen1 sentence2000Co. v. Davis, 856 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Tex. 1993), and clarified by Public Safety Officers Ass’n v. Denton, 897 S.W.2d 757, 761 (Tex.1995), applying the offensive use line of cases to the Fifth Amendment privilege in civil cases. | 1 | 1 |
Texas Department of Public Safety Officers Ass'n v. Dentongreen1 sentence2000Co. v. Davis, 856 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Tex. 1993), and clarified by Public Safety Officers Ass’n v. Denton, 897 S.W.2d 757, 761 (Tex.1995), applying the offensive use line of cases to the Fifth Amendment privilege in civil cases. | 1 | 1 |
Krumb v. Portergreen1 sentence1992Also, see Krumb v. Porter, 152 S.W.2d 495, 497 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1941, writ ref’d) and Ex parte Lipscomb, 111 Tex. 409 , 239 S.W. 1101, 1103 (1922). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte A.D. Lipscombgreen2 sentences1992Also, see Krumb v. Porter, 152 S.W.2d 495, 497 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1941, writ ref’d) and Ex parte Lipscomb, 111 Tex. 409 , 239 S.W. 1101, 1103 (1922). 1992Also, see Krumb v. Porter, 152 S.W.2d 495, 497 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1941, writ ref’d) and Ex parte Lipscomb, 111 Tex. 409 , 239 S.W. 1101, 1103 (1922). | 1 | 1 |
OKC Corp. v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1989OKC Corp. v. Williams, 461 F.Supp. 540, 546 (N.D.Tex. *548 1978). [6] Accordingly, the privilege has been limited both by statutory exception and strict construction. 1989OKC Corp. v. Williams, 461 F.Supp. 540, 546 (N.D.Tex.1 978). 6 Accordingly, the privilege has been limited both by statutory exception and strict construction. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Volcanic Gardens Management Co. v. Paxson
green
1 sentence2021UDF urges this Court to adopt the expansive view of the fraud exception to the attorney–client privilege the El Paso Court of Appeals embraced in Volcanic Gardens Management Co. v. Paxson. 847 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1993, orig. proceeding) (concluding “under the crime/fraud exception to the lawyer-client privilege, ‘fraud’ would include the commission and/or attempted commission of fraud on the court or on a third person, as well as common law fraud and criminal fraud.”). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Texas Lottery Commission v. First State Bank of DeQueen
green
1 sentence2018When interpreting a statute or a rule, we presume that language has been chosen "with care and that every word or phrase was used with a purpose in mind." Texas Lottery Comm'n v. First State Bank of DeQueen, 325 S.W.3d 628 , 635 (Tex. 2010). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Vennus v. State
green
1 sentence2015In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (attorney-client privilege); Ex parte Miles, 359 S.W.3d 647 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) . (privilege derived from the work-product doctrine); Sanchez v. State, 365 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) ("while district court judges are allowed to exchange benches without geographical restrictions, the Legislature - has not extended that same privilege to statutory county court judges.”); Vennus v. State, 282 S.W.3d 70 , 72 n.l (Tex.Crim.App.2009) ’ ("except with respect to privileges, the rules of evidence do not apply to suppression hear- tags.”); Lander | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In re McCann
green
1 sentence2015In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (attorney-client privilege); Ex parte Miles, 359 S.W.3d 647 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) . (privilege derived from the work-product doctrine); Sanchez v. State, 365 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) ("while district court judges are allowed to exchange benches without geographical restrictions, the Legislature - has not extended that same privilege to statutory county court judges.”); Vennus v. State, 282 S.W.3d 70 , 72 n.l (Tex.Crim.App.2009) ’ ("except with respect to privileges, the rules of evidence do not apply to suppression hear- tags.”); Lander | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Landers v. State
green
1 sentence2015In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (attorney-client privilege); Ex parte Miles, 359 S.W.3d 647 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) . (privilege derived from the work-product doctrine); Sanchez v. State, 365 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) ("while district court judges are allowed to exchange benches without geographical restrictions, the Legislature - has not extended that same privilege to statutory county court judges.”); Vennus v. State, 282 S.W.3d 70 , 72 n.l (Tex.Crim.App.2009) ’ ("except with respect to privileges, the rules of evidence do not apply to suppression hear- tags.”); Lander | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Sanchez v. Guerrero
green
1 sentence2015Although appellants argue that to other nearby lots, were "consumers" even though third-parties were at the training sessions between they complained about lots other than the lots Krugh and Perry Homes sales representatives and purchased); Sanchez v. Guerrero, 885 S. W.2d 487 ,490 thus the lawyer-client privilege does not apply, the (Tex.App.-El Paso 1994, no writ) (broker's failure record before us does not show that third patties were to mention that home's previous owner was child present during the sessions. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In re XL Specialty Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2015Co., 373 S.W.3d at 49-50 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Miles, Ex Parte Richard Ray Jr.
green
1 sentence2015In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (attorney-client privilege); Ex parte Miles, 359 S.W.3d 647 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) . (privilege derived from the work-product doctrine); Sanchez v. State, 365 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) ("while district court judges are allowed to exchange benches without geographical restrictions, the Legislature - has not extended that same privilege to statutory county court judges.”); Vennus v. State, 282 S.W.3d 70 , 72 n.l (Tex.Crim.App.2009) ’ ("except with respect to privileges, the rules of evidence do not apply to suppression hear- tags.”); Lander | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Sacramento Newspaper Guild, Local 92 v. Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
green
1 sentence1972Each 'expresses a separate policy objective, but neither refers expressly to the other in terms of dominance or reconciliation. . . .' 69 Cal.Rptr. at 488-89 . (emphasis added.) The Sacramento court continued~as follaws: "The two enactments (Government Code and Evidence Code) are capable of conc'urrent opera- tion if the lawyer-client privilege is not wer- blown beyond its true dimensions. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.