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.
8 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Huie v. DeShazogreen2 sentences2011In Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920, 923-25 (Tex.1996), the supreme court held that a trustee’s duty of disclosure does not override the attorney-client privilege and expressly rejected a claim that the provisions of article 1396-2.23 overrode a claim of attorney-client privilege. 2011In Huie v. DeShazo , 922 S.W.2d 920 , 923–25 (Tex. 1996), the supreme court held that a trustee’s duty of disclosure does not override the attorney-client privilege and expressly rejected a claim that the provisions of article 1396-2.23 overrode a claim of attorney-client privilege. | 1 | 3 |
Arkla, Inc. v. Harrisgreen1 sentence2018Co., No. 03-10-00250-CV, 2010 WL 2540726 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin June 25, 2010, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (rejecting the real parties in interest’s argument that the relator’s failure to make a prima facie case of attorney-client privilege due to lack of affidavits or testimony was dispositive, and observing that the documents may constitute sufficient evidence to make a prima facie showing of privilege); Arkla, Inc. v. Harris, 846 S.W.2d 623, 631 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (holding that, where the documents were the best evidence to substantiate the claim of | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Pennsylvania Bar Ass'ngreen1 sentence2015Id.; see also Lewis v. Pa. Bar Ass'n, 549 of disclosure does not override the attorney-client privilege Pa. 471, 701 A.2d 551, 555 (1997) (holding documents and expressly rejected a claim that the provisions of article otherwise accessible to members may be protected from 1396–2.23 overrode a claim of attorney-client privilege. | 1 | 1 |
Saur v. Stategreen1 sentence2003Saur v. State, 918 S.W.2d 64, 66 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. United Shoe MacHinery Corporationgreen2 sentences1996United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357, 358-59 (D.Mass.1950). 1996United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357, 358-59 (D.Mass.1950). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burton v. Cravey
green
2 sentences2015In disclosure to third parties by considerations of privacy, analyzing an argument similar to the one made by Gaughan such as references to employee's health records; privilege, in this case, the Texas Supreme Court held as follows: such as records protected by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine; or confidentiality where both [Real party in interest] Chenault relies on Burton v. corporate purpose and public's interest are served by Cravey, 759 S.W.2d 160 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] keeping information confidential); Stroud v. Grace, 606 1988, no writ), for the proposition tha 2011In analyzing an argument similar to the one made by Gau-ghan in this case, the Texas Supreme Court held as follows: [Real party in interest] Chenault relies on Burton v. Cravey, 759 S.W.2d 160 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no writ), for the proposition that the attorney-client privilege does not apply where a party has a right to information independently of the rules of discovery. | 4 | 2011–2015 |
Ballew v. State
green
1 sentence1985In the case of Ballew v. State, 640 S.W.2d 237 (Tex.Crim.App.1980), the Court of Criminal Appeals decided a question of first impression in regard to the State’s right to discovery and utilization of reports, notes and testimony of a defendant’s psychiatrist witness as against the claim of attorney-client privilege. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.