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.
13 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1957–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
Savino v. Lucianogreen2 sentences1995Savino v. Luciano, 92 So.2d 817, 819 (Fla. 1957) (defendant invoking accountant-client privilege as to an audit waived the right when he relied on the audit to prove a defense and counterclaim). 1968In Savino, supra, the court in an accountant-client privilege relationship, stated as follows at page 819: "As in the case of all personal privileges, the accountant-client privilege may be waived by the client. | 1 | 2 |
Parkway Bank v. FORT MYERS ARMATURE WORKgreen1 sentence2017See Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So. 2d 646, 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (recognizing that “a petitioner must establish 1 In the liability portion of the case, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Samra finding that: (i) Samra and Bedoyan had formed a partnership in 2009; (ii) Bedoyan had breached the partnership agreement; and (iii) WPM Miami, Inc. was a partnership asset. 2 Samra initially also sought communications that the petitioners argue are protected by the attorney-client privilege. | 1 | 1 |
Eight Hundred, Inc. v. FLA. DEPT. OF REV.green1 sentence2015Eight Hundred, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue, 837 So.2d 574, 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc.green1 sentence2006See Jenney, 846 So.2d at 668 ("[A]ttorney-client privilege is not waived simply because the credibility of Jenney's statements concerning his intent could possibly be impeached by his communications with his former attorney."); Choice Restaurant Acquisition Ltd. v. Whitley, Inc., 816 So.2d 1165, 1167-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (discussing the accountant-client privilege and noting that "a court cannot justify finding waiver of the privilege merely because the information sought is needed by the opposing party to provide information helpful to cross examination or for the defense of a cause of acti | 1 | 1 |
Choice Restaurant Acquisition Ltd. v. Whitley, Inc.green2 sentences2006See Jenney, 846 So.2d at 668 ("[A]ttorney-client privilege is not waived simply because the credibility of Jenney's statements concerning his intent could possibly be impeached by his communications with his former attorney."); Choice Restaurant Acquisition Ltd. v. Whitley, Inc., 816 So.2d 1165, 1167-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (discussing the accountant-client privilege and noting that "a court cannot justify finding waiver of the privilege merely because the information sought is needed by the opposing party to provide information helpful to cross examination or for the defense of a cause of acti 2006After Choice asserted the accountant-client privilege, the sellers moved to *510 compel answers to the questions. 816 So.2d at 1166-67 . | 1 | 1 |
Shafnaker v. Claytongreen1 sentence2006See Jenney, 846 So.2d at 668 ("[A]ttorney-client privilege is not waived simply because the credibility of Jenney's statements concerning his intent could possibly be impeached by his communications with his former attorney."); Choice Restaurant Acquisition Ltd. v. Whitley, Inc., 816 So.2d 1165, 1167-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (discussing the accountant-client privilege and noting that "a court cannot justify finding waiver of the privilege merely because the information sought is needed by the opposing party to provide information helpful to cross examination or for the defense of a cause of acti | 1 | 1 |
Coyne v. SCHWARTZ, GOLD, COHEN, ZAKARINgreen1 sentence2006See Jenney, 846 So.2d at 668 ("[A]ttorney-client privilege is not waived simply because the credibility of Jenney's statements concerning his intent could possibly be impeached by his communications with his former attorney."); Choice Restaurant Acquisition Ltd. v. Whitley, Inc., 816 So.2d 1165, 1167-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (discussing the accountant-client privilege and noting that "a court cannot justify finding waiver of the privilege merely because the information sought is needed by the opposing party to provide information helpful to cross examination or for the defense of a cause of acti | 1 | 1 |
Shell Oil Co. v. PAR FOUR PARTNER.green1 sentence2003"When communications appear on their face to be privileged, the party seeking disclosure bears the burden of proving that they are not." Shell Oil Co. v. Par Four P'ship, 638 So.2d 1050, 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). | 1 | 1 |
Falsone v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1999See Falsone v. United States, 205 F.2d 734, 739 (5th Cir. 1953); Rubin v. Katz, 347 F.Supp. 322, 324 (E.D.Pa.1972) (asserting narrow construction of accountant-client privilege statutes because they are in derogation of common law); McNair v. Eighth J. | 1 | 1 |
Rubin v. Katzgreen1 sentence1999See Falsone v. United States, 205 F.2d 734, 739 (5th Cir. 1953); Rubin v. Katz, 347 F.Supp. 322, 324 (E.D.Pa.1972) (asserting narrow construction of accountant-client privilege statutes because they are in derogation of common law); McNair v. Eighth J. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 389579green1 sentence1987See Weil v. Investment/Indicators, Research & Management, Inc., 647 F.2d 18 (9th Cir.1981); Smith v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Greenberg v. Florida State Board of Dentistrygreen1 sentence1976See Greenberg, supra. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Krulewitch
green
2 sentences1968And, as in all confidential and privileged communications, `[t]he justification for the privilege lies not in the fact of communication, but in the interest of the persons concerned that the subject matter should not become public.' Judge Learned Hand speaking in United States v. Krulewitch, 2 Cir., 145 F.2d 76, 79 , 156 A.L.R. 337 . 1968And, as in all confidential and privileged communications, `[t]he justification for the privilege lies not in the fact of communication, but in the interest of the persons concerned that the subject matter should not become public.' Judge Learned Hand speaking in United States v. Krulewitch, 2 Cir., 145 F.2d 76, 79 , 156 A.L.R. 337 . | 2 | 1957–1968 |
State v. Famiglietti
green
1 sentence2011Cf. State v. Famiglietti, 817 So.2d 901 , 912 n. 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Sorondo, J., dissenting) (“In Florida, only the attorney-client privilege and the accountant-client privilege contain crime-fraud exceptions.”). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
FLORIDA MIN. & MAT. CORP. v. Continental Cas. Co.
green
1 sentence1997The prima facie standard was relied on in Florida Mining & Materials v. Continental Casualty Co., 556 So.2d 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), which stated that "[t]o come within the statutory exception, Continental must allege and produce prima facie evidence that petitioners affirmatively sought the advice of counsel to procure a fraud." We also applied the "prima facie evidence" test in considering the crime-fraud exception when applied to an accountant-client privilege. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Silverman v. Turner
green
1 sentence1990Partnership, 526 So.2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Lumpkins v. Amendola, 466 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Albert v. Hartford Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 423 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Gruman v. Bankers Trust Co., 379 So.2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Silverman v. Turner, 188 So.2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), and, accordingly, (b) the defendant cannot shield such legitimate disclosure by turning over the relevant financial records and data to his accountant and thereafter have his accountant assert the accountant-client privilege so as to block, as here, any deposition or subpoena duces tecum of the ac | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Jim Appley's Tru-Arc, Inc. v. LIQUID EXT. SYS. LTD. P'SHIP
green
1 sentence1990Partnership, 526 So.2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Lumpkins v. Amendola, 466 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Albert v. Hartford Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 423 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Gruman v. Bankers Trust Co., 379 So.2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Silverman v. Turner, 188 So.2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), and, accordingly, (b) the defendant cannot shield such legitimate disclosure by turning over the relevant financial records and data to his accountant and thereafter have his accountant assert the accountant-client privilege so as to block, as here, any deposition or subpoena duces tecum of the ac | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Gruman v. Bankers Trust Co.
green
1 sentence1990Partnership, 526 So.2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Lumpkins v. Amendola, 466 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Albert v. Hartford Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 423 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Gruman v. Bankers Trust Co., 379 So.2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Silverman v. Turner, 188 So.2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), and, accordingly, (b) the defendant cannot shield such legitimate disclosure by turning over the relevant financial records and data to his accountant and thereafter have his accountant assert the accountant-client privilege so as to block, as here, any deposition or subpoena duces tecum of the ac | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Albert v. Hartford National Bank & Trust Co.
green
1 sentence1990Partnership, 526 So.2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Lumpkins v. Amendola, 466 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Albert v. Hartford Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 423 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Gruman v. Bankers Trust Co., 379 So.2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Silverman v. Turner, 188 So.2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), and, accordingly, (b) the defendant cannot shield such legitimate disclosure by turning over the relevant financial records and data to his accountant and thereafter have his accountant assert the accountant-client privilege so as to block, as here, any deposition or subpoena duces tecum of the ac | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Lumpkins v. Amendola
green
1 sentence1990Partnership, 526 So.2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Lumpkins v. Amendola, 466 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Albert v. Hartford Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 423 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Gruman v. Bankers Trust Co., 379 So.2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Silverman v. Turner, 188 So.2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), and, accordingly, (b) the defendant cannot shield such legitimate disclosure by turning over the relevant financial records and data to his accountant and thereafter have his accountant assert the accountant-client privilege so as to block, as here, any deposition or subpoena duces tecum of the ac | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.
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.