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.
7 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Heardgreen2 sentences2015Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc. v. Heard, rules, the fact that certain information within the documents 774 S.W.2d 316, 318 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, may be discoverable through other means does not overcome orig. proceeding). the privilege. [9] The submitted affidavits establish the elements In their second request for production, the real parties required under the attorney-client communication privilege in interest sought access to certain depositions given in and the work product exemption. 1992Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc. v. Heard, 774 S.W.2d 316, 318 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, orig. proceeding). | 2 | 2 |
Keene Corp. v. Caldwellgreen2 sentences2001See Keene Corp., 840 S.W.2d at 719 (citing Maryland Amer. 2001See Keene Corp., 840 S.W.2d at 719 (citing Maryland Amer. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Austin v. State
green
2 sentences2016The State argued that Roberts could be compelled to testi[f¡y about his communication of court dates to Bailey, as the transmission of this information is exempt from the attorney-client communication privilege under the rule of Austin v. State, 934 S.W.2d 672 (Tex. Crim. 2015The court The State argued that Roberts could be compelled to testily ruled that the Jefferson County case should not be discussed about his communication of court dates to Bailey, as the unless the defense “opened the door.” transmission of this information is exempt from the attorney- client communication privilege under the rule of Austin v. 5 Bailey does not claim on appeal that the injection State, 934 S.W.2d 672 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). | 3 | 2015–2016 |
West v. Solito
green
2 sentences1993The court, citing West v. Solito, 563 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.1978), held that one such situation occurs when the trial court orders documents to be produced that are covered by the attorney-client communication privilege. 1992The court, citing West v. Solito, 563 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.1978), held that one such situation occurs when the trial court orders documents to be produced that are covered by the attorney-client communication privilege. | 2 | 1992–1993 |
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.