9 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hitt v. Stephensgreen2 sentences2026App. 3d 687, 693-94 (1984); DeHart, 2013 IL 114137, ¶ 69 ); see also DeHart, 2013 IL 114137, ¶ 73 (finding “this is indisputably a will contest,” and so “plaintiff will be able to make out a prima facie case on remand that the attorney-client privilege does not apply because it is subject to the will-contest exception”); Hitt, 285 Ill. 2023Absent a showing of some appropriate exception, such as the will contest exception, it will remain intact.” Hitt, 285 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
DeHart v. DeHartgreen2 sentences2026App. 3d 687, 693-94 (1984); DeHart, 2013 IL 114137, ¶ 69 ); see also DeHart, 2013 IL 114137, ¶ 73 (finding “this is indisputably a will contest,” and so “plaintiff will be able to make out a prima facie case on remand that the attorney-client privilege does not apply because it is subject to the will-contest exception”); Hitt, 285 Ill. 2026App. 3d 687, 693-94 (1984); DeHart, 2013 IL 114137, ¶ 69 ); see also DeHart, 2013 IL 114137, ¶ 73 (finding “this is indisputably a will contest,” and so “plaintiff will be able to make out a prima facie case on remand that the attorney-client privilege does not apply because it is subject to the will-contest exception”); Hitt, 285 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
Morrow v. Pappasgreen2 sentences2023App. 3d 300, 306 (2004) (“When an agent communicates with the principal’s attorney, the agent speaks as the client, or principal, and his or her communications are protected to the same extent as though the principal was speaking.”); 755 ILCS 45/2-1 (West 2020) (stating purpose for durable powers of attorney). ¶ 36 The failure of petitioner to contest the existence of the attorney-client privilege in the parties’ pleadings and only contest whether the will contest exception applied resulted in depriving respondent of a meaningful opportunity to attempt to establish the necessary facts 2 “Infor 2023See Morrow, 2017 IL App (3d) 160393, ¶ 29 . | 1 | 1 |
Consolidation Coal Co. v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.green1 sentence2023The Court ruled that none of the documents produced for in camera inspection are protected by the attorney-client privilege as articulated by (Consolidation Coal Co. v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 89 Ill. 2d 103, 119 (1982))” 1, a case not argued or cited by either party in their dispute whether the will contest exception applied to this case. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Deckergreen1 sentence2023See Decker, 153 Ill. 2d at 328 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Eizenga v. Unity Christian School of Fulton, Illinois
green
2 sentences2026App. 3d at 717 (“The only context in which a client’s death might affect the viability of the privilege is a will contest.”). ¶ 17 The first and only time a court applied the testamentary exception outside a will contest occurred in Eizenga v. Unity Christian School of Fulton, Illinois, 2016 IL App (3d) 150519 , a case involving a challenge to an inter vivos trust. 2018Nothing in the DeHart case supports the plaintiffs’ contention that the exception applies outside of will contest cases. ¶ 30 The plaintiffs cite this court’s decision in Eizenga v. Unity Christian School of Fulton, Illinois, 2016 IL App (3d) 150519 , when they posit that the exception to the privilege applies to non-will contest cases. | 3 | 2017–2026 |
Briscoe v. LaHue
green
2 sentences1998The doctrine of absolute privilege from civil suit for statements made in judicial proceedings has been described by the U.S. Supreme Court as "well established" ( Briscoe v. Lahue , 460 U.S. 325, 330-31 , 75 L. 1998The doctrine of absolute privilege from civil suit for statements made in judicial proceedings has been described by the U.S. Supreme Court as "well established" ( Briscoe v. Lahue , 460 U.S. 325, 330-31 , 75 L. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
In Re Estate of Donovan
green
2 sentences1995At this point it is appropriate to refer to the expressions of the supreme court in In re Estate of Donovan (1951), 409 Ill. 195 , 98 N.E.2d 757 , in which the surviving husband, who was an executor and trustee under the will, also renounced the will. 1995At this point it is appropriate to refer to the expressions of the supreme court in In re Estate of Donovan (1951), 409 Ill. 195 , 98 N.E.2d 757 , in which the surviving husband, who was an executor and trustee under the will, also renounced the will. | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Adler v. Greenfield
green
1 sentence2023In Adler v. Greenfield, 2013 IL App (1st) 121066, ¶ 61 , this court held that the exception to the privilege for a will contest does not apply where the action was not a will contest but was “a separate action in the law division and not in the probate division, for legal malpractice.” ¶ 39 The will contest exception to the attorney-client privilege does not apply in actions that do not directly contest a testamentary instrument where the separate action involves what could arguably be categorized as testamentary issues. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Shriners Hospitals for Children v. Bauman
green
2 sentences2013Ellis, 236 Ill. 2d at 48-49 . ¶ 27 This court explained: “Our holding in Robinson was limited to not recognizing the tort action where plaintiffs have an opportunity to contest a probated will but choose not to do so, and subsequently enter into an agreement to take no further court action.” Id. at 54 . 2013Ellis, 236 Ill. 2d at 48-49 . ¶ 27 This court explained: “Our holding in Robinson was limited to not recognizing the tort action where plaintiffs have an opportunity to contest a probated will but choose not to do so, and subsequently enter into an agreement to take no further court action.” Id. at 54 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.