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.
6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1978–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
Agra Enterprises, Inc. v. Brunozzigreen2 sentences2014The accountant-client privilege is waivable by the client, see Agra Enterprises, Inc. v. Brunozzi, 302 Pa. Super. 166 , 171 n. 1, 448 A.2d 579 , 582 n. 1 (1982) (under the accountant-client privilege codified in Section 9.11a of the CPA Law, 63 P.S. § 9.11a, “the right to grant or withhold permission to speak lies in the client”), and two board members have waived that privilege by producing copies of their communications with Kelly & Associates. 2014The accountant-client privilege is waivable by the client, see Agra Enterprises, Inc. v. Brunozzi, 302 Pa. Super. 166 , 171 n. 1, 448 A.2d 579 , 582 n. 1 (1982) (under the accountant-client privilege codified in Section 9.11a of the CPA Law, 63 P.S. § 9.11a, “the right to grant or withhold permission to speak lies in the client”), and two board members have waived that privilege by producing copies of their communications with Kelly & Associates. | 1 | 2 |
Neusteter v. DIST. CT. IN & FOR CITY, ETC.green1 sentence2000Neusteter v. The District Court, 675 P.2d 1, 5-7 (Colo. 1984) (holding that accountant-client privilege did not apply where the minority shareholders of two companies alleged corporate mismanagement of assets and the dispute is between the control group and minority group in a closely held corporation). | 1 | 1 |
Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.green1 sentence1978See T.W.A., Inc. v. Hughes, 332 F. 2d 602 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 248 (1965). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 264542green1 sentence1978See T.W.A., Inc. v. Hughes, 332 F. 2d 602 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 248 (1965). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gould v. City of Aliquippa
green
1 sentence2002Id. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
cluster 291747
green
1 sentence2000In addition, this court agrees with the plaintiff that the seminal case of Gamer v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5 th Cir. 1970) has relevance in deciding the applicability of the privilege. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Paasche
green
1 sentence1997In People v. Paasche, 525 N.W.2d 914 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege also applies to the accountant-client privilege. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Ernst v. Underwriters National Assurance Co.
green
1 sentence1980However, the accountant-client privilege belongs only to the client: Ernst & Ernst v. Underwriters National Assurance Co., 381 N.E. 2d 897 (Ct. App. Ind. 1978), and because both Kincoa and Kino Springs have been adjudicated bankrupt, have had their corporate charters voided and conduct no business, there is no entity whose interests would be protected by the accountant-client privilege. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.