communication waives privilege in Washington

9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington 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.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
Broyles v. Thurston Countygreen washctapp · 2008 · cited in 5 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2009–2018 2 sentences 2018The presence of a third person during the communication waives the privilege, unless the third person is -6 - No. 75901-9-1/7 necessary for the communication, State v. Martin, 137 Wn.2d 774, 787 , 975 P.2d 1020 (1999), or has retained the attorney on a matter of"common interest," Broyles v. Thurston County 147 Wn. 2016The presence of a third person during the communication waives the privilege, unless the third person is necessary for the communication or has retained the attorney on a matter of “ ‘common interest.’ ” Id. (quoting Broyles v. Thurston County, 147 Wn.	1	5
Morgan v. City of Federal Waygreen wash · 2009 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2010–2018 2 sentences 2018In contrast, for the attorney-client privilege, "[t]he presence of a third person during the communication waives the privilege." Morgan, 166 Wn.2d at 757 ; see also In re Pac. 2017Co., 642 F.2d at 1299 (emphasis omitted). ¶ 31 In contrast, for the attorney-client privilege, "[t]he presence of a third *1243 person during the communication waives the privilege." Morgan, 166 Wash.2d at 757 , 213 P.3d 596 ; see also In re Pac.	1	3
Morgan v. City of Federal Waygreen wash · 2009 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2010–2017 2 sentences 2017Co., 642 F.2d at 1299 (emphasis omitted). ¶ 31 In contrast, for the attorney-client privilege, "[t]he presence of a third 1243 person during the communication waives the privilege." Morgan, 166 Wash.2d at 757 , 213 P.3d 596 ; see also In re Pac. 2016*The presence of a third person during the communication waives the privilege, unless the third person is necessary for the communication or has retained the attorney on a matter of “ ‘common interest.’ ” Id. (quoting Broyles v. Thurston County, 147 Wn.	1	3
Martin O'boyle v. Borough of Longportgreen nj · 2014 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018Pictures Corp., 679 F.Sd 1121, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting "that voluntarily disclosing privileged documents to third parties will generally destroy the ^2 See also O'Boyle, 218 N.J. at 198 ("We acknowledge, however, that how far beyond 'the magic circle' privileged material may be shared depends on whether the disclosed material is protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine."). 17 Kittitas County v. Allphin et al.	1	1
United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.green cadc · 1980 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017Co., 642 F.2d at 1299 (emphasis omitted). ¶ 31 In contrast, for the attorney-client privilege, "[t]he presence of a third *1243 person during the communication waives the privilege." Morgan, 166 Wash.2d at 757 , 213 P.3d 596 ; see also In re Pac.	1	1
C.J.C. v. Corporation of Catholic Bishopgreen wash · 1999 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016App. 409, 442 , 195 P.3d 985 (2008)). *368 ¶29 “The ‘common interest’ doctrine provides that when multiple parties share confidential communications pertaining to their common claim or defense, the communications remain privileged as to those outside their group.” Sanders v. State, 169 Wn.2d 827, 853 , 240 P.3d 120 (2010); see also C.J.C. v. Corp. of Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 138 Wn.2d 699, 716 , 985 P.2d 262 (1999).	1	1
CJC v. Corporation of Catholic Bishopgreen wash · 1999 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016App. 409, 442 , 195 P.3d 985 (2008)). *368 ¶29 “The ‘common interest’ doctrine provides that when multiple parties share confidential communications pertaining to their common claim or defense, the communications remain privileged as to those outside their group.” Sanders v. State, 169 Wn.2d 827, 853 , 240 P.3d 120 (2010); see also C.J.C. v. Corp. of Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 138 Wn.2d 699, 716 , 985 P.2d 262 (1999).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Broyles v. Thurston County green washctapp · 2008 2 sentences 2018App. 409,442 , 195 P.3d 985 (2008). 2009The presence of a third person during the communication waives the privilege, unless the third person is necessary for the communication, State v. Martin, 137 Wash.2d 774, 787 , 975 P.2d 1020 (1999), or has retained the attorney on a matter of "common interest," Broyles v. Thurston County, 147 Wash.App. 409, 442 , 195 P.3d 985 (2008).	4	2009–2018
State v. Martin green wash · 1999 2 sentences 2018The presence of a third person during the communication waives the privilege, unless the third person is -6 - No. 75901-9-1/7 necessary for the communication, State v. Martin, 137 Wn.2d 774, 787 , 975 P.2d 1020 (1999), or has retained the attorney on a matter of"common interest," Broyles v. Thurston County 147 Wn. 2009The presence of a third person during the communication waives the privilege, unless the third person is necessary for the communication, State v. Martin, 137 Wn.2d 774, 787 , 975 P.2d 1020 (1999), or has retained the attorney on a matter of “common interest,” Broyles v. Thurston County, 147 Wn.	3	2009–2018
State v. Martin green wash · 1999 2 sentences 2018The presence of a third person during the communication waives the privilege, unless the third person is -6 - No. 75901-9-1/7 necessary for the communication, State v. Martin, 137 Wn.2d 774, 787 , 975 P.2d 1020 (1999), or has retained the attorney on a matter of"common interest," Broyles v. Thurston County 147 Wn. 2009The presence of a third person during the communication waives the privilege, unless the third person is necessary for the communication, State v. Martin, 137 Wn.2d 774, 787 , 975 P.2d 1020 (1999), or has retained the attorney on a matter of “common interest,” Broyles v. Thurston County, 147 Wn.	3	2009–2018
Pacific Pictures Corp. v. United States District Court green ca9 · 2012 1 sentence 2017Pictures Corp., 679 F.3d 1121 , 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting "that voluntarily disclosing privileged documents to third parties will generally destroy the [attorney-client] privilege"); RESTATEMENT § 79 ("The attorney-client privilege is waived if the client, the client's lawyer, or another authorized agent of the client voluntarily discloses the communication in a nonprivileged communication."). *711 ¶ 32 The different standards of waiver for the attorney-client privilege and work product protection result from the differing purposes behind the doctrines: The [attorney-client] privilege, i	1	2017–2017
Sanders v. State green wash · 2010 1 sentence 2016App. 409, 442 , 195 P.3d 985 (2008)). *368 ¶29 “The ‘common interest’ doctrine provides that when multiple parties share confidential communications pertaining to their common claim or defense, the communications remain privileged as to those outside their group.” Sanders v. State, 169 Wn.2d 827, 853 , 240 P.3d 120 (2010); see also C.J.C. v. Corp. of Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 138 Wn.2d 699, 716 , 985 P.2d 262 (1999).	1	2016–2016
Sanders v. State green wash · 2010 1 sentence 2016App. 409, 442 , 195 P.3d 985 (2008)). *368 ¶29 “The ‘common interest’ doctrine provides that when multiple parties share confidential communications pertaining to their common claim or defense, the communications remain privileged as to those outside their group.” Sanders v. State, 169 Wn.2d 827, 853 , 240 P.3d 120 (2010); see also C.J.C. v. Corp. of Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 138 Wn.2d 699, 716 , 985 P.2d 262 (1999).	1	2016–2016
Martin v. Shaen green wash · 1945 2 sentences 1983While it is true that testimony offered at trial as to part of a communication waives the privilege as to the entire communication ( Martin v. Shaen, 22 Wn.2d 505, 513 , 156 P.2d 681 (1945)), this rule of waiver does not apply to partial disclosure outside trial. 1983While it is true that testimony offered at trial as to part of a communication waives the privilege as to the entire communication ( Martin v. Shaen, 22 Wn.2d 505, 513 , 156 P.2d 681 (1945)), this rule of waiver does not apply to partial disclosure outside trial.	1	1983–1983
State v. Pam green wash · 1983 2 sentences 1983Cf. State v. Pam, 98 Wn.2d 748 , 764 n. 7, 659 P.2d 454 (1983) (rule that defendant's statement waives privilege against self-incrimination regarding related matters applies only where statement put before trier of fact). 1983Cf. State v. Pam, 98 Wn.2d 748 , 764 n. 7, 659 P.2d 454 (1983) (rule that defendant's statement waives privilege against self-incrimination regarding related matters applies only where statement put before trier of fact).	1	1983–1983

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.290 (7) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.030 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 5.60.060 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.070 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.550 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.010 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.540 (4) USC § 42u.s.c.1983 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

WA 9 (1983–2018) OH 2 (2006–2014)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check