protection privilege in Illinois

2010If, therefore, he desires the protection of the privilege, he must claim it or he will not be considered to have been ‘compelled’ within the meaning of the [ajmendment.” United States v. Monia, 317 U.S. 424, 427 , 87 L.

2010If, therefore, he desires the protection of the privilege, he must claim it or he will not be considered to have been ‘compelled’ within the meaning of the [ajmendment.” United States v. Monia, 317 U.S. 424, 427 , 87 L.

2018Wigmore, Evidence § 2304, at 587 (McNaughton rev. ed. 1961); see also 1 Kenneth S. Broun et al., McCormick on Evidence § 88 n.3, at 540 (7th ed. 2013) (“Of course, statements made after the employment is declined are not privileged.”); People v. Gionis, 892 P.2d 1199, 1207 (Cal. 1995) (collecting cases and observing that “authorities in other jurisdictions appear to uniformly hold that the attorney-client privilege does not protect statements made after an attorney declines employment”).

2018Wigmore, Evidence § 2304, at 587 (McNaughton rev. ed. 1961); see also 1 Kenneth S. Broun et al., McCormick on Evidence § 88 n.3, at 540 (7th ed. 2013) (“Of course, statements made after the employment is declined are not privileged.”); People v. Gionis, 892 P.2d 1199, 1207 (Cal. 1995) (collecting cases and observing that “authorities in other jurisdictions appear to uniformly hold that the attorney-client privilege does not protect statements made after an attorney declines employment”).

2010Ed. 1118, 1124 , 71 S. Ct. 814, 818 (1951) (cautioning that, in establishing his claim to the fifth amendment privilege, a witness should not be “compelled to surrender the very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee”).

2010See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 , 71 S.Ct. 814, 818 , 95 L.Ed. 1118, 1124 (1951) (cautioning that, in establishing his claim to the fifth amendment privilege, a witness should not be *816 "compelled to surrender the very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee").

2014But we are reluctant to require courts to inquire into the quality of a marriage beyond examining whether the marriage was for purposes of disqualifying a witness.” Glover v. State, 836 N.E.2d 414, 419 (Ind. 2005) (citing Lilley, 581 F.2d at 189 , People v. Fields, 328 N.Y.S.2d 542, 544-45 (N.Y.

2014But we are reluctant to require courts to inquire into the quality of a marriage beyond examining whether the marriage was for purposes of disqualifying a witness.” Glover v. State, 836 N.E.2d 414, 419 (Ind. 2005) (citing Lilley, 581 F.2d at 189 , People v. Fields, 328 N.Y.S.2d 542, 544-45 (N.Y.

2014Ct. App. 1992) (per curiam) (“The courts will not engage in an after-the-fact analysis of whether a statement is ‘incidental to’ or ‘because of’ the marital relationship, because a married couple, and each of them, should be secure in the knowledge that their private communications are exactly that—private.”); United States v. Sims, 755 F.2d 1239 , 1243 n.3 (6th Cir. 1985) (“We do not believe that courts can or should assess the social worthiness of particular marriages or the need of particular marriages for the protection of the privilege.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); United States

2014Ct. App. 1992) (per curiam) (“The courts will not engage in an after-the-fact analysis of whether a statement is ‘incidental to’ or ‘because of’ the marital relationship, because a married couple, and each of them, should be secure in the knowledge that their private communications are exactly that—private.”); United States v. Sims, 755 F.2d 1239 , 1243 n.3 (6th Cir. 1985) (“We do not believe that - 19 - courts can or should assess the social worthiness of particular marriages or the need of particular marriages for the protection of the privilege.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); United

2014Ct. App. 1992) (per curiam) (“The courts will not engage in an after-the-fact analysis of whether a statement is ‘incidental to’ or ‘because of’ the marital relationship, because a married couple, and each of them, should be secure in the knowledge that their private communications are exactly that—private.”); United States v. Sims, 755 F.2d 1239 , 1243 n.3 (6th Cir. 1985) (“We do not believe that courts can or should assess the social worthiness of particular marriages or the need of particular marriages for the protection of the privilege.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); United States

2014Ct. App. 1992) (per curiam) (“The courts will not engage in an after-the-fact analysis of whether a statement is ‘incidental to’ or ‘because of’ the marital relationship, because a married couple, and each of them, should be secure in the knowledge that their private communications are exactly that—private.”); United States v. Sims, 755 F.2d 1239 , 1243 n.3 (6th Cir. 1985) (“We do not believe that - 19 - courts can or should assess the social worthiness of particular marriages or the need of particular marriages for the protection of the privilege.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); United

2014Ct. App. 1992) (per curiam) (“The courts will not engage in an after-the-fact analysis of whether a statement is ‘incidental to’ or ‘because of’ the marital relationship, because a married couple, and each of them, should be secure in the knowledge that their private communications are exactly that—private.”); United States v. Sims, 755 F.2d 1239 , 1243 n.3 (6th Cir. 1985) (“We do not believe that courts can or should assess the social worthiness of particular marriages or the need of particular marriages for the protection of the privilege.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); United States

2014Ct. App. 1992) (per curiam) (“The courts will not engage in an after-the-fact analysis of whether a statement is ‘incidental to’ or ‘because of’ the marital relationship, because a married couple, and each of them, should be secure in the knowledge that their private communications are exactly that—private.”); United States v. Sims, 755 F.2d 1239 , 1243 n.3 (6th Cir. 1985) (“We do not believe that - 19 - courts can or should assess the social worthiness of particular marriages or the need of particular marriages for the protection of the privilege.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); United

2014But we are reluctant to require courts to inquire into the quality of a marriage beyond examining whether the marriage was for purposes of disqualifying a witness.” Glover v. State, 836 N.E.2d 414, 419 (Ind. 2005) (citing Lilley, 581 F.2d at 189 , People v. Fields, 328 N.Y.S.2d 542, 544-45 (N.Y.

2014But we are reluctant to require courts to inquire into the quality of a marriage beyond examining whether the marriage was for purposes of disqualifying a witness.” Glover v. State, 836 N.E.2d 414, 419 (Ind. 2005) (citing Lilley, 581 F.2d at 189 , People v. Fields, 328 N.Y.S.2d 542, 544-45 (N.Y.

2011If, therefore, he desires the protection of the privilege, he must claim it or he will not be considered to have been “compelled” within the meaning of the Amendment.’ ” People v. Snow, 403 Ill.

2011If, therefore, he desires the protection of the privilege, he must claim it or he will not be considered to have been "compelled" within the meaning of the Amendment.' " People v. Snow, 403 Ill.

2008See Bates, 212 Ill. 2d at 517 (allowing the appellate court judgment to stand where the petitioner “fail[ed] to give this court an adequate basis to grant her relief on this issue”). (2) Whether the Court of Claims Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs’ Claims in Tort Defendant claims the protection of the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

2008See Bates, 212 Ill.2d at 517 , 289 Ill.Dec. 218 , 819 N.E.2d 714 (allowing the appellate court judgment to stand where the petitioner "fail[ed] to give this court an adequate basis to grant her relief on this issue"). (2) Whether the Court of Claims Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs' Claims in Tort Defendant claims the protection of the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

2005See also Yip, 606 F. Supp. at 1571 (“it is not necessary that a witness be subpoenaed in order to receive the protection of the privilege” and it is “irrelevant” that a defendant’s statement was not made in response to a specific question).

2005See also Yip, 606 F.Supp. at 1571 ("it is not necessary that a witness be subpoenaed in order to receive the protection of the privilege" and it is "irrelevant" that a defendant's statement was not made in response to a specific question).

2024In Illinois there is “a strong policy of encouraging disclosure, with an eye toward ascertaining that truth which is essential to the proper disposition of a lawsuit.” Waste Management, Inc. v. International Surplus Lines Insurance Co., 144 Ill. 2d 178, 190 (1991). 7 No. 1-23-1958 ¶ 23 Further, “courts limit the protection of the privilege, especially in a corporate context where broad privilege would effectively make most relevant material immune from discovery.” Claxton v. Thackston, 201 Ill.

2024In Illinois there is “a strong policy of encouraging disclosure, with an eye toward ascertaining that truth which is essential to the proper disposition of a lawsuit.” Waste Management, Inc. v. International Surplus Lines Insurance Co., 144 Ill. 2d 178, 190 (1991). 7 No. 1-23-1958 ¶ 23 Further, “courts limit the protection of the privilege, especially in a corporate context where broad privilege would effectively make most relevant material immune from discovery.” Claxton v. Thackston, 201 Ill.

2012We adopted the reasoning of the California Supreme Court in Albertson v. Raboff, 295 P.2d 405, 409 (Cal. 1956), which stated that it would be incongruous to apply a privilege to statements made in a lawsuit, but withdraw the protection of the privilege where a litigant publishes only the fact that he has brought the suit, particularly where he is authorized by statute to make that publication. ¶ 15 The recording of a lien is readily distinguishable from the publishing of a lis pendens notice.

1993See Gerrity, 71 Ill.2d at 51 , 15 Ill.Dec. 639 , 373 N.E.2d 1323 (immunity protects teacher's disciplinary and supervisory authority).

1993See Gerrity, 71 Ill. 2d at 51 (immunity protects teacher’s disciplinary and supervisory authority).

1990See Washburn, 186 Ill.