holder privilege in Oregon

2017After answering that question in the affirmative, the court went further and addressed the very question before us now: “We do not believe the legislature intended waiver to occur when a plaintiff in a personal injury or malpractice case is required by the opponent to submit to a pretrial dis- covery deposition, because in that situation the holder of the privilege is not voluntarily offering his or her confiden- tial communications or personal condition to the public.” Grimm, 298 Or at 213 n 3.

2017After answering that question in the affirmative, the court went further and addressed the very question before us now: “We do not believe the legislature intended waiver to occur when a plaintiff in a personal injury or malpractice case is required by the opponent to submit to a pretrial discovery deposition, because in that situation the holder of the privilege is not voluntarily offering his or her confidential communications or personal condition to the public.” Grimm, 298 Or at 213 n 3.

2017As this court explained in State v. Langley, 314 Or 247, 264 , 839 P2d 692 (1992), adh’d to on recons, 318 Or 28 , 861 P2d 1012 (1993): “Before 1981, any testimony offered by a holder of privilege waived any communication that the holder had with any other person ‘on the same sub- ject.’ Former ORS 44.040(2) repealed by Or Laws 1981, ch 892, § 98.

2017As this court explained in State v. Langley, 314 Or 247, 264 , 839 P2d 692 (1992), adh’d to on recons, 318 Or 28 , 861 P2d 1012 (1993): “Before 1981, any testimony offered by a holder of privilege waived any communication that the holder had with any other person ‘on the same sub- ject.’ Former ORS 44.040(2) repealed by Or Laws 1981, ch 892, § 98.

2021The Supreme Court said exactly that more than 50 years ago in Ross v. Bernhard, 396 US 531, 532-33 , 90 S Ct 733 , 24 L Ed 2d 729 (1970): “We hold that the right to jury trial attaches to those issues in derivative actions as to which the corporation, if it had been suing in its own right, would have been entitled to a jury.” 4 4 In Ross, the Supreme Court relied upon a now century-old precedent.

2021The Supreme Court said exactly that more than 50 years ago in Ross v. Bernhard, 396 US 531, 532-33 , 90 S Ct 733 , 24 L Ed 2d 729 (1970): “We hold that the right to jury trial attaches to those issues in derivative actions as to which the corporation, if it had been suing in its own right, would have been entitled to a jury.” 4 4 In Ross, the Supreme Court relied upon a now century-old precedent.

2017As this court explained in State v. Langley, 314 Or 247, 264 , 839 P2d 692 (1992), adh’d to on recons, 318 Or 28 , 861 P2d 1012 (1993): “Before 1981, any testimony offered by a holder of privilege waived any communication that the holder had with any other person ‘on the same sub- ject.’ Former ORS 44.040(2) repealed by Or Laws 1981, ch 892, § 98.

2017As this court explained in State v. Langley, 314 Or 247, 264 , 839 P2d 692 (1992), adh’d to on recons, 318 Or 28 , 861 P2d 1012 (1993): “Before 1981, any testimony offered by a holder of privilege waived any communication that the holder had with any other person ‘on the same sub- ject.’ Former ORS 44.040(2) repealed by Or Laws 1981, ch 892, § 98.

1994I do not believe that is what Welch [v. Bancorp Management Services, 296 Or 208 , 675 P2d 172 (1983)] requires.

1994I do not believe that is what Welch [v. Bancorp Management Services, 296 Or 208 , 675 P2d 172 (1983)] requires.

1973See, People v. Feuerstein, 161 Misc 426 , 293 NYS 239 (1936). *527 In any ease, the Groff court noted that: “We have held that the privilege conferred thereby is not an absolute one, regardless of who may claim it. [Citing Chandler v. State, 230 Or 452 , 370 P2d 626 (1962).] Eeese in The Oregon Lawyer’s Trial Booh, Evidentiary Privilege in Oregon, ch 3, § 3.47 (1967), referring to ORS 411.320 states: “ ‘Despite the provisions of the statute, when the fundamental rights of a person are in jeopardy, parts of welfare records may, in the discretion of the court, be used * * V [Citations omitted.]”

1973See, People v. Feuerstein, 161 Misc 426 , 293 NYS 239 (1936). *527 In any ease, the Groff court noted that: “We have held that the privilege conferred thereby is not an absolute one, regardless of who may claim it. [Citing Chandler v. State, 230 Or 452 , 370 P2d 626 (1962).] Eeese in The Oregon Lawyer’s Trial Booh, Evidentiary Privilege in Oregon, ch 3, § 3.47 (1967), referring to ORS 411.320 states: “ ‘Despite the provisions of the statute, when the fundamental rights of a person are in jeopardy, parts of welfare records may, in the discretion of the court, be used * * V [Citations omitted.]”

1961However, in Garcia v. Sumrall, 58 Ariz 526, 121 P2d 640 (1942), the court assumes that a possessory interest is created in the grantee of a Taylor Grazing Act *419 lease.

1961However, in Garcia v. Sumrall, 58 Ariz 526, 121 P2d 640 (1942), the court assumes that a possessory interest is created in the grantee of a Taylor Grazing Act lease.