11 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1963–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota 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 |
|---|---|---|
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Zdravkovichgreen2 sentences2012See Zdravkovich, 852 A.2d at 95 (bank statements or escrow account bank records are not subject to the confidentiality requirements of Rule 1.6 or to the attorney-client privilege). 2012See Zdravkovich , 852 A.2d at 95 (bank statements or escrow account bank records are not subject to the confidentiality requirements of Rule 1.6 or to the attorney-client privilege). | 2 | 2 |
Knoff v. American Crystal Sugar Co.green1 sentence2022See Knoff v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 380 N.W.2d 313, 320 (N.D. 1986) (overruled on other grounds) (“The attorney-client privilege should be applied only to protect communications, not facts. | 1 | 1 |
Bolyea v. First Presbyterian Church of Wilton, NDgreen1 sentence1986Bolyea v. First Presbyterian Church of Wilton, 196 N.W.2d 149, 153 (N.D.1972) (discussing previous attorney-client privilege statute). | 1 | 1 |
Dabney v. Investment Corp. of Americagreen1 sentence1981The Supreme Court of North Carolina, in rejecting the defendant’s contention that her statements to her neighbor, Willardson, had been privileged, stated, in Van Landingham, supra 197 S.E.2d at 547 , quoting with approval from another North Carolina case, State v. Smith, 138 N.C. 700 , 50 S.E. 859, 860 (1905), that the attorney-client privilege “ ‘extends only to such confidential communications as are made to the attorney by virtue of his professional relation to the client.’ It has no application to an adviser who ‘had no legal rights to appear as prisoner’s attorney in any court in this Sta | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smith.green2 sentences1981The Supreme Court of North Carolina, in rejecting the defendant’s contention that her statements to her neighbor, Willardson, had been privileged, stated, in Van Landingham, supra 197 S.E.2d at 547 , quoting with approval from another North Carolina case, State v. Smith, 138 N.C. 700 , 50 S.E. 859, 860 (1905), that the attorney-client privilege “ ‘extends only to such confidential communications as are made to the attorney by virtue of his professional relation to the client.’ It has no application to an adviser who ‘had no legal rights to appear as prisoner’s attorney in any court in this Sta 1981The Supreme Court of North Carolina, in rejecting the defendant’s contention that her statements to her neighbor, Willardson, had been privileged, stated, in Van Landingham, supra 197 S.E.2d at 547 , quoting with approval from another North Carolina case, State v. Smith, 138 N.C. 700 , 50 S.E. 859, 860 (1905), that the attorney-client privilege “ ‘extends only to such confidential communications as are made to the attorney by virtue of his professional relation to the client.’ It has no application to an adviser who ‘had no legal rights to appear as prisoner’s attorney in any court in this Sta | 1 | 1 |
State Highway Commission v. Earlgreen2 sentences1981The Supreme Court of North Carolina, in rejecting the defendant’s contention that her statements to her neighbor, Willardson, had been privileged, stated, in Van Landingham, supra 197 S.E.2d at 547 , quoting with approval from another North Carolina case, State v. Smith, 138 N.C. 700 , 50 S.E. 859, 860 (1905), that the attorney-client privilege “ ‘extends only to such confidential communications as are made to the attorney by virtue of his professional relation to the client.’ It has no application to an adviser who ‘had no legal rights to appear as prisoner’s attorney in any court in this Sta 1981The Supreme Court of North Carolina, in rejecting the defendant’s contention that her statements to her neighbor, Willardson, had been privileged, stated, in Van Landingham, supra 197 S.E.2d at 547 , quoting with approval from another North Carolina case, State v. Smith, 138 N.C. 700 , 50 S.E. 859, 860 (1905), that the attorney-client privilege “ ‘extends only to such confidential communications as are made to the attorney by virtue of his professional relation to the client.’ It has no application to an adviser who ‘had no legal rights to appear as prisoner’s attorney in any court in this Sta | 1 | 1 |
Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.green1 sentence1981The Supreme Court of North Carolina, in rejecting the defendant’s contention that her statements to her neighbor, Willardson, had been privileged, stated, in Van Landingham, supra 197 S.E.2d at 547 , quoting with approval from another North Carolina case, State v. Smith, 138 N.C. 700 , 50 S.E. 859, 860 (1905), that the attorney-client privilege “ ‘extends only to such confidential communications as are made to the attorney by virtue of his professional relation to the client.’ It has no application to an adviser who ‘had no legal rights to appear as prisoner’s attorney in any court in this Sta | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wattiegreen2 sentences1981The Supreme Court of North Carolina, in rejecting the defendant’s contention that her statements to her neighbor, Willardson, had been privileged, stated, in Van Landingham, supra 197 S.E.2d at 547 , quoting with approval from another North Carolina case, State v. Smith, 138 N.C. 700 , 50 S.E. 859, 860 (1905), that the attorney-client privilege “ ‘extends only to such confidential communications as are made to the attorney by virtue of his professional relation to the client.’ It has no application to an adviser who ‘had no legal rights to appear as prisoner’s attorney in any court in this Sta 1981The Supreme Court of North Carolina, in rejecting the defendant’s contention that her statements to her neighbor, Willardson, had been privileged, stated, in Van Landingham, supra 197 S.E.2d at 547 , quoting with approval from another North Carolina case, State v. Smith, 138 N.C. 700 , 50 S.E. 859, 860 (1905), that the attorney-client privilege “ ‘extends only to such confidential communications as are made to the attorney by virtue of his professional relation to the client.’ It has no application to an adviser who ‘had no legal rights to appear as prisoner’s attorney in any court in this Sta | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Paley v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1963Paley v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.2d 450 , 290 P. 2d 617 at 621 . 1963Paley v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.2d 450 , 290 P. 2d 617 at 621 . | 2 | 1963–1963 |
In Interest of JA
green
1 sentence2001Had the petition alleged neglect, and had the proceeding resulted from a report of child abuse or neglect, pursuant to Chapter 50-25.1, NDCC, the Rule 503 physician and psychotherapist-patient privilege tvould have been abrogated. [¶ 16] In In Interest of J.A., 283 N.W.2d 83 (N.D.1979), this Court discussed a similar issue in the context of a doctor’s testimony in a termination case predicated on child abuse. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Clark v. Second Judicial District Court
green
2 sentences1995Cf. Clark v. District Court, 101 Nev. 58 , 692 P.2d 512 (1985) (extraordinary writ issued to prevent the district court from requiring the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege)." Id. 818 P.2d at 400 . 1995Cf. Clark v. District Court, 101 Nev. 58 , 692 P.2d 512 (1985) (extraordinary writ issued to prevent the district court from requiring the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege)." Id. 818 P.2d at 400 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
PUBLIC SERV. COM'N v. Eighth Jud. D. Ct.
green
2 sentences1995Cf. Clark v. District Court, 101 Nev. 58 , 692 P.2d 512 (1985) (extraordinary writ issued to prevent the district court from requiring the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege)." Id. 818 P.2d at 400 . 1995Cf. Clark v. District Court, 101 Nev. 58 , 692 P.2d 512 (1985) (extraordinary writ issued to prevent the district court from requiring the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege).” Id. 818 P.2d at 400 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
In Re Tepper
green
2 sentences1993In re Tepper, 126 Ill.2d 109 , 127 Ill.Dec. 756 , 533 N.E.2d 838 (1988). 1993In re Tepper, 126 Ill.2d 109 , 127 Ill.Dec. 756 , 533 N.E.2d 838 (1988). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Flores
green
2 sentences1990(People v. Flores (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 559, 563 , 139 Cal.Rptr. 546 .) “On the other hand, as a statutory creation, the privilege is an exception to the general rule requiring disclosure. 1990(People v. Flores (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 559, 563 , 139 Cal.Rptr. 546 .) “On the other hand, as a statutory creation, the privilege is an exception to the general rule requiring disclosure. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Mitchell v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1990In commencing the discussion of the issue of the effect of an inadvertent production of a privileged document, the court said: “ ‘The attorney-client privilege has been a hallmark of Anglo-American jurisprudence for almost 400 years. [Citations.] The privilege authorizes a client to refuse to disclose, and to prevent others from disclosing, confidential communications between attorney and client_ Clearly, the fundamental purpose behind the privilege is to safeguard the confidential relationship between clients and their attorneys so as to promote full and open discussion of the facts and tacti 1990In commencing the discussion of the issue of the effect of an inadvertent production of a privileged document, the court said: “ ‘The attorney-client privilege has been a hallmark of Anglo-American jurisprudence for almost 400 years. [Citations.] The privilege authorizes a client to refuse to disclose, and to prevent others from disclosing, confidential communications between attorney and client_ Clearly, the fundamental purpose behind the privilege is to safeguard the confidential relationship between clients and their attorneys so as to promote full and open discussion of the facts and tacti | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Gonzales v. Mun. Court for the L.A. Judicial Dist. of L.A. Cty.
green
2 sentences1990Clearly, the fundamental purpose behind the privilege is to safeguard the confidential relationship between clients and their attorneys so as to promote full and open discussion of the facts and tactics surrounding individual legal matters. [Citations.]' ( Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 599 , 208 Cal.Rptr. 886 , 691 P.2d 642 .) As such, courts have held that the privilege should be liberally construed. ( People v. Flores (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 559, 563 , 139 Cal.Rptr. 546 .) "On the other hand, as a statutory creation, the privilege is an exception to the general rule requiring 1990Clearly, the fundamental purpose behind the privilege is to safeguard the confidential relationship between clients and their attorneys so as to promote full and open discussion of the facts and tactics surrounding individual legal matters. [Citations.]' ( Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 599 , 208 Cal.Rptr. 886 , 691 P.2d 642 .) As such, courts have held that the privilege should be liberally construed. ( People v. Flores (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 559, 563 , 139 Cal.Rptr. 546 .) "On the other hand, as a statutory creation, the privilege is an exception to the general rule requiring | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Sterling v. Keidan
green
2 sentences1990For although the California appeals court relies on Wigmore to find a waiver in the aforementioned case, the Court of Appeals of Michigan, in Sterling v. Keidan, 162 Mich.App. 88 , 412 N.W.2d 255 (1987), found no waiver of the attorney-client privilege when the defendant inadvertently failed to remove a privileged document from a “fairly voluminous” file which the defendant turned over to the plaintiff. 1990For although the California appeals court relies on Wigmore to find a waiver in the aforementioned case, the Court of Appeals of Michigan, in Sterling v. Keidan, 162 Mich.App. 88 , 412 N.W.2d 255 (1987), found no waiver of the attorney-client privilege when the defendant inadvertently failed to remove a privileged document from a “fairly voluminous” file which the defendant turned over to the plaintiff. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Van Landingham
green
1 sentence1981The Supreme Court of North Carolina, in rejecting the defendant’s contention that her statements to her neighbor, Willardson, had been privileged, stated, in Van Landingham, supra 197 S.E.2d at 547 , quoting with approval from another North Carolina case, State v. Smith, 138 N.C. 700 , 50 S.E. 859, 860 (1905), that the attorney-client privilege “ ‘extends only to such confidential communications as are made to the attorney by virtue of his professional relation to the client.’ It has no application to an adviser who ‘had no legal rights to appear as prisoner’s attorney in any court in this Sta | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.