asserted holder privilege (Pennsylvania) · Go Syfert
← Pennsylvania issues

asserted holder privilege in Pennsylvania

44 Pennsylvania opinions name it 7 courts 1981–2026 14 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.

Followed or applied (16)

CaseFollowedCited
Commonwealth v. Mrozekgreen
pasuperct · 1995 · cited in 8 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1996–2025
2 sentences

1999Mass. 1950) (Wyzanski, J.): “The privilege applies only if (1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not (d) for the

1999Mass. 1950) (Wyzanski, J.): “The privilege applies only if (1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not (d) for the

88
Yocabet v. UPMC Presbyteriangreen
pasuperct · 2015 · cited in 5 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2016–2026
2 sentences

2026The attorney-client privilege applies when the moving party proves the following four elements: 1) The asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client. 2) The person to whom the communication was made is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate. 3) The communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed by his client, without the presence of strangers, for the purpose of securing either an opinion of law, legal services or assistance in a legal matter, and not for the purpose of committing a crime or tort. 4) The privilege has been claimed and is not w

2020Yocabet v. UPMC Presbyterian, 119 A.3d 1012, 1027 (Pa.Super. 2015).8 ____________________________________________ 8 The Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 68, Attorney- Client Privilege, similarly provides that the privilege may be invoked with respect to: (1) a communication (2) made between privileged persons (3) in confidence (4) for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance for the client. - 11 - J-A21033-19 Mr. Maddaloni facially invoked the attorney-client privilege at his deposition and in his responses to requests for production.

55
DAGES v. Carbon Countygreen
pacommwct · 2012 · cited in 4 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2014–2022
2 sentences

2022Dages v. Carbon Cnty., 44 A.3d 89, 92 (Pa. Cmwlth 2012). 7 (2.) The communication was made by a member of the bar of a court or his or subordinate, or to such a person by a client.

2018This Court, in Dages v. Carbon County , 44 A.3d 89 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012), explained: Previously, the following four elements were required to establish the attorney-client privilege: (1) that the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) that the person to whom the communication was made is a member of the bar of a court, or his or her subordinate; (3) that the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed by the client, without the presence of strangers, for the purpose of securing an opinion of law, legal services or assistance in a legal matter;

34
PA Dept. of Ed. v. R. Bagwell PSU v. R. Bagwellgreen
pacommwct · 2016 · cited in 3 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2017–2023
2 sentences

2023Cal. Univ. of Pa., 168 A.3d at 421 (quoting Pa. Dep’t of Educ. v. Bagwell, 131 A.3d 638, 656 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015)).

2023Id. at 656 . “[A]fter an agency establishes the privilege was properly invoked under the first three prongs, the party challenging invocation of the privilege must prove waiver under the fourth prong.” Davis, 122 A.3d at 1192 .

23
United States v. United Shoe MacHinery Corporationgreen
mad · 1950 · cited in 3 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1984–2022
2 sentences

1984The controlling definition of the attorney-client privilege was set forth in United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357 (D.C., Mass. 1950): “The privilege applies only if (1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication relates to a fact of which the lawyer was informed (a) by his client, (b) without the presence of strangers, (c) for the purpose of secur

1984The controlling definition of the attorney-client privilege was set forth in United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357 (D.C., Mass. 1950): “The privilege applies only if (1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication relates to a fact of which the lawyer was informed (a) by his client, (b) without the presence of strangers, (c) for the purpose of secur

23
Red Vision Systems, Inc. v. National Real Estate Information Services, L.P.green
pasuperct · 2015 · cited in 3 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2015–2017
2 sentences

2017Id. at 62-63 (emphases, added; citation omitted). 4 .

2016Red Vision Systems, Inc. [v. National Real Estate Information Services, L.P., 108 A.3d 54 , 62-63 (Pa.Super.2015) ] (citation omitted).

23
Carbis Walker, LLP v. Hill, Barth and King, LLCgreen
pasuperct · 2007 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2011–2025
2 sentences

2025Carbis Walker, 930 A.2d at 579 (citation omitted). 15 We reiterate that the record in this case is 2,797 pages with discovery still ongoing.

2011Carbis Walker, LLP v. Hill, Barth and King, LLC, 2007 Pa. Super. 221, ¶ 10 , 930 A.2d 573, 579 (citing Nationwide Mutual Ins.

22
Levy v. Senate of Pennsylvaniagreen
pa · 2013 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2023–2025
2 sentences

2025In contrast, an entry that generically states that counsel made a telephone call for a specific amount of time to the client is not information protected by the attorney-client privilege but, instead, is subject to disclosure under the specific provisions of the [RTK Law]. 24 Id. at 373 (citations omitted.) To establish the application of the attorney-client privilege, an agency must demonstrate the following: (1) The asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) The person to whom the communication was made is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate; (3) The

2023In contrast, an entry that generically states that counsel made a telephone call for a specific amount of time to the client is not information protected by the attorney-client privilege but, instead, is subject to disclosure under the specific provisions of the RTKL. the client be compelled to disclose the same, unless in either case this privilege is waived upon the trial by the client.”). 11 Levy II, 65 A.3d at 373 (internal citation omitted).15 To establish the application of the attorney-client privilege, an agency must demonstrate the following: (1) The asserted holder of the privilege i

22
In re Westinghouse Electric Corp. Uranium Contracts Litigationgreen
pawd · 1977 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1981–1987
2 sentences

1987See Brennan v. Brennan, supra; Loutzenhiser v. Doddo, 436 Pa. 512 , 260 A.2d 745 (1970); Tracy v. Tracy, 377 Pa. 420 , 105 A.2d 122 (1954); Nadler v. Warner Co., 321 Pa. 139 , 184 Atl. 3 (1936); Cridge’s Estate, 289 Pa. 331 , 137 Atl. 455 (1927); Alexander v. Queen, 253 Pa. 195 , 97 Atl. 1063 (1916); Turner v. Warren, 160 Pa. 336 , 28 Atl. 781 (1894); Commonwealth v. Trolene, 263 Pa. Super. 263 , 397 A.2d 1200, 1204-5 (1979); Zimmerman v. Berrie, 10 D.&C.3d 110 (1979); Trzesniowski v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 59 D.&C.2d 44 (1973); and In Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts L

1981See Brennan v. Brennan, supra; Com. v. Trolene, 263 Pa. Superior Ct. 263, 270-272 , 397 A. 2d 1200, 1204-5 (1979); Nadler v. Warner Co., 321 Pa. 139 , 184 Atl. 3 (1936); Alexander v. Queen, 253 Pa. 195 , 97 Atl. 1063 (1916); Cridge’s Estate, 289 Pa. 331 , 137 Atl. 455 (1927); Turner v. Warren, 160 Pa. 336 , 28 Atl. 781 (1894); Loutzenhiser v. Doddo, 436 Pa. 512 , 260 A. 2d 745 (1970); Tracy v. Tracy, 377Pa. 420, 105 A. 2d 122 (1954); In re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts Litigation, 76 F.R.D. 47, 56-7 (W.D.

22
Commonwealth v. Trolenegreen
pasuperct · 1979 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1981–1987
2 sentences

1987See Brennan v. Brennan, supra; Loutzenhiser v. Doddo, 436 Pa. 512 , 260 A.2d 745 (1970); Tracy v. Tracy, 377 Pa. 420 , 105 A.2d 122 (1954); Nadler v. Warner Co., 321 Pa. 139 , 184 Atl. 3 (1936); Cridge’s Estate, 289 Pa. 331 , 137 Atl. 455 (1927); Alexander v. Queen, 253 Pa. 195 , 97 Atl. 1063 (1916); Turner v. Warren, 160 Pa. 336 , 28 Atl. 781 (1894); Commonwealth v. Trolene, 263 Pa. Super. 263 , 397 A.2d 1200, 1204-5 (1979); Zimmerman v. Berrie, 10 D.&C.3d 110 (1979); Trzesniowski v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 59 D.&C.2d 44 (1973); and In Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts L

1987See Brennan v. Brennan, supra; Loutzenhiser v. Doddo, 436 Pa. 512 , 260 A.2d 745 (1970); Tracy v. Tracy, 377 Pa. 420 , 105 A.2d 122 (1954); Nadler v. Warner Co., 321 Pa. 139 , 184 Atl. 3 (1936); Cridge’s Estate, 289 Pa. 331 , 137 Atl. 455 (1927); Alexander v. Queen, 253 Pa. 195 , 97 Atl. 1063 (1916); Turner v. Warren, 160 Pa. 336 , 28 Atl. 781 (1894); Commonwealth v. Trolene, 263 Pa. Super. 263 , 397 A.2d 1200, 1204-5 (1979); Zimmerman v. Berrie, 10 D.&C.3d 110 (1979); Trzesniowski v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 59 D.&C.2d 44 (1973); and In Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts L

22
Ford-Bey, W. v. Professional Anesthesia Servicesgreen
pasuperct · 2020 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2022–2025
2 sentences

2025Of N. Am., LLC., 229 A.3d 984 , 990 n.7 (Pa. Super 2020). 4 The analogous provision for criminal cases is codified at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5916. - 11 - J-A23040-24 (1) The asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client. (2) The person to whom the communication was made is a member of the bar of a court or his subordinate. (3) The communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed by his client, without the presence of strangers, for the purpose of securing either an opinion of law, legal services or assistance in a legal matter, and not for the purpose of committing

2022Ford-Bey, 229 A.3d at 990-91 (citation omitted).4 Establishing that the privilege applies “often entails an affidavit, statement, or testimony clarifying the circumstances under which the communication was made.” Id. at 991 .

12
Maleski v. Corporate Life Insurancegreen
pacommwct · 1994 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
2 sentences

2019Id. at 1264 (citations omitted). [Where] the attorney-client privilege has been invoked by a corporate client[,] our Commonwealth Court has previously recognized "this privilege attaches to communications made by corporate as well as individual clients." Maleski v. Corporate Life Insurance Co. , 163 Pa.Cmwlth. 36 , 641 A.2d 1 , 3 (1994) (citing Upjohn v. United States , 449 U.S. 383 , 101 S.Ct. 677 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981) ).

2019Id. at 1264 (citations omitted). [Where] the attorney-client privilege has been invoked by a corporate client[,] our Commonwealth Court has previously recognized "this privilege attaches to communications made by corporate as well as individual clients." Maleski v. Corporate Life Insurance Co. , 163 Pa.Cmwlth. 36 , 641 A.2d 1 , 3 (1994) (citing Upjohn v. United States , 449 U.S. 383 , 101 S.Ct. 677 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981) ).

12
Twp. of Neshannock v. Kirila Contractors, Inc.green
pacommwct · 2018 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022Twp. of Neshannock v. Kirila Contractors, Inc., 181 A.3d 467, 473 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (citation omitted).

11
Smith Ex Rel. Smith Butz, LLC v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protectiongreen
pacommwct · 2017 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020Prot., 161 A.3d 1049, 1059 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). 7 (1) The asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client. (2) The person to whom the communication was made is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate. (3) The communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed by his client, without the presence of strangers, for the purpose of securing either an opinion of law, legal services or assistance in a legal matter, and not for the purpose of committing a crime or tort. (4) The privilege has been claimed and is not waived by

11
Bonds v. Bondsgreen
pasuperct · 1997 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007Nationwide, supra, at ¶ 11 (citations omitted). “[T]he appellate courts of this jurisdiction have found waiver [of the attorney-client privilege] when the communication is made in the presence of or communicated to a third party or to the court, when the client relies on the attorney’s advice as an affirmative defense, or when the confidential information is placed at issue.” Bonds v. Bonds, 455 Pa.Super. 610 , 689 A.2d 275, 277 (1997). ¶ 11 Ohio’s comparable statutory provision is as follows. § 2817.02.

2007Nationwide, supra, at ¶ 11 (citations omitted). “[T]he appellate courts of this jurisdiction have found waiver [of the attorney-client privilege] when the communication is made in the presence of or communicated to a third party or to the court, when the client relies on the attorney’s advice as an affirmative defense, or when the confidential information is placed at issue.” Bonds v. Bonds, 455 Pa.Super. 610 , 689 A.2d 275, 277 (1997). ¶ 11 Ohio’s comparable statutory provision is as follows. § 2817.02.

11
Brennan v. Brennangreen
pasuperct · 1980 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (16)

CaseCitedYears
Bagwell v. Pennsylvania Department of Education green
pacommwct · 2014
2 sentences

2021Bagwell v. Pa. Dep’t of Educ., 103 A.3d 409 , 420 n.12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (quoting Nationwide Mut.

2015We conclude that the requested documents are privileged under section 102 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.102, pursu ant to the attorney-work-product doctrine and the attorney-client privilege. 9 To assert the attorney-client privilege, an agency must demonstrate that: “ ‘(1) The asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client. (2) The person to whom the communication was made is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate. (3) The communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed by his client, without the presence of strangers, for the purpose of securing e

42015–2021
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Fleming green
pasuperct · 2007
2 sentences

2023Pennsylvania Department of Education v. Bagwell (Bagwell 2015), 114 A.3d 1113 , 1123-24 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (citing, in part, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Fleming, 924 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2007), aff’d by an equally divided court, 992 A.2d 65 (Pa. 2010)). 10 Senior Judge Kelley, Special Master in Levy I, concluded as follows regarding whether and to what extent descriptions of legal services may be redacted under the attorney-client privilege: To the extent that the documents specify the issues or laws researched by the attorneys, specific services provided and the names of individua

2015Nationwide, 924 A.2d at 1264 , quoting Commonwealth v. Mzroek, 657 A.2d 997, 998 (Pa. Super. 1995); Custom Designs, 39 A.3d at 376 .

32015–2023
Office of the Governor v. R.H. Davis, Jr. green
pacommwct · 2015
2 sentences

2023Id. at 656 . “[A]fter an agency establishes the privilege was properly invoked under the first three prongs, the party challenging invocation of the privilege must prove waiver under the fourth prong.” Davis, 122 A.3d at 1192 .

2020Davis, 122 A.3d at 1191–92 (emphasis omitted).

22020–2023
Upjohn Co. v. United States green
scotus · 1981
2 sentences

2019Id. at 1264 (citations omitted). [Where] the attorney-client privilege has been invoked by a corporate client[,] our Commonwealth Court has previously recognized "this privilege attaches to communications made by corporate as well as individual clients." Maleski v. Corporate Life Insurance Co. , 163 Pa.Cmwlth. 36 , 641 A.2d 1 , 3 (1994) (citing Upjohn v. United States , 449 U.S. 383 , 101 S.Ct. 677 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981) ).

2019Id. at 1264 (citations omitted). [Where] the attorney-client privilege has been invoked by a corporate client[,] our Commonwealth Court has previously recognized "this privilege attaches to communications made by corporate as well as individual clients." Maleski v. Corporate Life Insurance Co. , 163 Pa.Cmwlth. 36 , 641 A.2d 1 , 3 (1994) (citing Upjohn v. United States , 449 U.S. 383 , 101 S.Ct. 677 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981) ).

22019–2019
Tracy v. Tracy green
pa · 1954
2 sentences

1987See Brennan v. Brennan, supra; Loutzenhiser v. Doddo, 436 Pa. 512 , 260 A.2d 745 (1970); Tracy v. Tracy, 377 Pa. 420 , 105 A.2d 122 (1954); Nadler v. Warner Co., 321 Pa. 139 , 184 Atl. 3 (1936); Cridge’s Estate, 289 Pa. 331 , 137 Atl. 455 (1927); Alexander v. Queen, 253 Pa. 195 , 97 Atl. 1063 (1916); Turner v. Warren, 160 Pa. 336 , 28 Atl. 781 (1894); Commonwealth v. Trolene, 263 Pa. Super. 263 , 397 A.2d 1200, 1204-5 (1979); Zimmerman v. Berrie, 10 D.&C.3d 110 (1979); Trzesniowski v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 59 D.&C.2d 44 (1973); and In Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts L

1987See Brennan v. Brennan, supra; Loutzenhiser v. Doddo, 436 Pa. 512 , 260 A.2d 745 (1970); Tracy v. Tracy, 377 Pa. 420 , 105 A.2d 122 (1954); Nadler v. Warner Co., 321 Pa. 139 , 184 Atl. 3 (1936); Cridge’s Estate, 289 Pa. 331 , 137 Atl. 455 (1927); Alexander v. Queen, 253 Pa. 195 , 97 Atl. 1063 (1916); Turner v. Warren, 160 Pa. 336 , 28 Atl. 781 (1894); Commonwealth v. Trolene, 263 Pa. Super. 263 , 397 A.2d 1200, 1204-5 (1979); Zimmerman v. Berrie, 10 D.&C.3d 110 (1979); Trzesniowski v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 59 D.&C.2d 44 (1973); and In Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts L

21981–1987
Turner v. Warren green
pa · 1894
2 sentences

1987See Brennan v. Brennan, supra; Loutzenhiser v. Doddo, 436 Pa. 512 , 260 A.2d 745 (1970); Tracy v. Tracy, 377 Pa. 420 , 105 A.2d 122 (1954); Nadler v. Warner Co., 321 Pa. 139 , 184 Atl. 3 (1936); Cridge’s Estate, 289 Pa. 331 , 137 Atl. 455 (1927); Alexander v. Queen, 253 Pa. 195 , 97 Atl. 1063 (1916); Turner v. Warren, 160 Pa. 336 , 28 Atl. 781 (1894); Commonwealth v. Trolene, 263 Pa. Super. 263 , 397 A.2d 1200, 1204-5 (1979); Zimmerman v. Berrie, 10 D.&C.3d 110 (1979); Trzesniowski v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 59 D.&C.2d 44 (1973); and In Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts L

1987See Brennan v. Brennan, supra; Loutzenhiser v. Doddo, 436 Pa. 512 , 260 A.2d 745 (1970); Tracy v. Tracy, 377 Pa. 420 , 105 A.2d 122 (1954); Nadler v. Warner Co., 321 Pa. 139 , 184 Atl. 3 (1936); Cridge’s Estate, 289 Pa. 331 , 137 Atl. 455 (1927); Alexander v. Queen, 253 Pa. 195 , 97 Atl. 1063 (1916); Turner v. Warren, 160 Pa. 336 , 28 Atl. 781 (1894); Commonwealth v. Trolene, 263 Pa. Super. 263 , 397 A.2d 1200, 1204-5 (1979); Zimmerman v. Berrie, 10 D.&C.3d 110 (1979); Trzesniowski v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 59 D.&C.2d 44 (1973); and In Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts L

21981–1987
Alexander v. Queen green
pa · 1916
2 sentences

1987See Brennan v. Brennan, supra; Loutzenhiser v. Doddo, 436 Pa. 512 , 260 A.2d 745 (1970); Tracy v. Tracy, 377 Pa. 420 , 105 A.2d 122 (1954); Nadler v. Warner Co., 321 Pa. 139 , 184 Atl. 3 (1936); Cridge’s Estate, 289 Pa. 331 , 137 Atl. 455 (1927); Alexander v. Queen, 253 Pa. 195 , 97 Atl. 1063 (1916); Turner v. Warren, 160 Pa. 336 , 28 Atl. 781 (1894); Commonwealth v. Trolene, 263 Pa. Super. 263 , 397 A.2d 1200, 1204-5 (1979); Zimmerman v. Berrie, 10 D.&C.3d 110 (1979); Trzesniowski v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 59 D.&C.2d 44 (1973); and In Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts L

1987See Brennan v. Brennan, supra; Loutzenhiser v. Doddo, 436 Pa. 512 , 260 A.2d 745 (1970); Tracy v. Tracy, 377 Pa. 420 , 105 A.2d 122 (1954); Nadler v. Warner Co., 321 Pa. 139 , 184 Atl. 3 (1936); Cridge’s Estate, 289 Pa. 331 , 137 Atl. 455 (1927); Alexander v. Queen, 253 Pa. 195 , 97 Atl. 1063 (1916); Turner v. Warren, 160 Pa. 336 , 28 Atl. 781 (1894); Commonwealth v. Trolene, 263 Pa. Super. 263 , 397 A.2d 1200, 1204-5 (1979); Zimmerman v. Berrie, 10 D.&C.3d 110 (1979); Trzesniowski v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 59 D.&C.2d 44 (1973); and In Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts L

21981–1987
Loutzenhiser v. Doddo green
pa · 1970
2 sentences

1987See Brennan v. Brennan, supra; Loutzenhiser v. Doddo, 436 Pa. 512 , 260 A.2d 745 (1970); Tracy v. Tracy, 377 Pa. 420 , 105 A.2d 122 (1954); Nadler v. Warner Co., 321 Pa. 139 , 184 Atl. 3 (1936); Cridge’s Estate, 289 Pa. 331 , 137 Atl. 455 (1927); Alexander v. Queen, 253 Pa. 195 , 97 Atl. 1063 (1916); Turner v. Warren, 160 Pa. 336 , 28 Atl. 781 (1894); Commonwealth v. Trolene, 263 Pa. Super. 263 , 397 A.2d 1200, 1204-5 (1979); Zimmerman v. Berrie, 10 D.&C.3d 110 (1979); Trzesniowski v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 59 D.&C.2d 44 (1973); and In Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts L

1987See Brennan v. Brennan, supra; Loutzenhiser v. Doddo, 436 Pa. 512 , 260 A.2d 745 (1970); Tracy v. Tracy, 377 Pa. 420 , 105 A.2d 122 (1954); Nadler v. Warner Co., 321 Pa. 139 , 184 Atl. 3 (1936); Cridge’s Estate, 289 Pa. 331 , 137 Atl. 455 (1927); Alexander v. Queen, 253 Pa. 195 , 97 Atl. 1063 (1916); Turner v. Warren, 160 Pa. 336 , 28 Atl. 781 (1894); Commonwealth v. Trolene, 263 Pa. Super. 263 , 397 A.2d 1200, 1204-5 (1979); Zimmerman v. Berrie, 10 D.&C.3d 110 (1979); Trzesniowski v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 59 D.&C.2d 44 (1973); and In Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts L

21981–1987
Cridge's Estate green
pa · 1927
2 sentences

1987See Brennan v. Brennan, supra; Loutzenhiser v. Doddo, 436 Pa. 512 , 260 A.2d 745 (1970); Tracy v. Tracy, 377 Pa. 420 , 105 A.2d 122 (1954); Nadler v. Warner Co., 321 Pa. 139 , 184 Atl. 3 (1936); Cridge’s Estate, 289 Pa. 331 , 137 Atl. 455 (1927); Alexander v. Queen, 253 Pa. 195 , 97 Atl. 1063 (1916); Turner v. Warren, 160 Pa. 336 , 28 Atl. 781 (1894); Commonwealth v. Trolene, 263 Pa. Super. 263 , 397 A.2d 1200, 1204-5 (1979); Zimmerman v. Berrie, 10 D.&C.3d 110 (1979); Trzesniowski v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 59 D.&C.2d 44 (1973); and In Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts L

1987See Brennan v. Brennan, supra; Loutzenhiser v. Doddo, 436 Pa. 512 , 260 A.2d 745 (1970); Tracy v. Tracy, 377 Pa. 420 , 105 A.2d 122 (1954); Nadler v. Warner Co., 321 Pa. 139 , 184 Atl. 3 (1936); Cridge’s Estate, 289 Pa. 331 , 137 Atl. 455 (1927); Alexander v. Queen, 253 Pa. 195 , 97 Atl. 1063 (1916); Turner v. Warren, 160 Pa. 336 , 28 Atl. 781 (1894); Commonwealth v. Trolene, 263 Pa. Super. 263 , 397 A.2d 1200, 1204-5 (1979); Zimmerman v. Berrie, 10 D.&C.3d 110 (1979); Trzesniowski v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 59 D.&C.2d 44 (1973); and In Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts L

21981–1987
Nadler v. Warner Company green
pa · 1936
2 sentences

1987See Brennan v. Brennan, supra; Loutzenhiser v. Doddo, 436 Pa. 512 , 260 A.2d 745 (1970); Tracy v. Tracy, 377 Pa. 420 , 105 A.2d 122 (1954); Nadler v. Warner Co., 321 Pa. 139 , 184 Atl. 3 (1936); Cridge’s Estate, 289 Pa. 331 , 137 Atl. 455 (1927); Alexander v. Queen, 253 Pa. 195 , 97 Atl. 1063 (1916); Turner v. Warren, 160 Pa. 336 , 28 Atl. 781 (1894); Commonwealth v. Trolene, 263 Pa. Super. 263 , 397 A.2d 1200, 1204-5 (1979); Zimmerman v. Berrie, 10 D.&C.3d 110 (1979); Trzesniowski v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 59 D.&C.2d 44 (1973); and In Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts L

1987See Brennan v. Brennan, supra; Loutzenhiser v. Doddo, 436 Pa. 512 , 260 A.2d 745 (1970); Tracy v. Tracy, 377 Pa. 420 , 105 A.2d 122 (1954); Nadler v. Warner Co., 321 Pa. 139 , 184 Atl. 3 (1936); Cridge’s Estate, 289 Pa. 331 , 137 Atl. 455 (1927); Alexander v. Queen, 253 Pa. 195 , 97 Atl. 1063 (1916); Turner v. Warren, 160 Pa. 336 , 28 Atl. 781 (1894); Commonwealth v. Trolene, 263 Pa. Super. 263 , 397 A.2d 1200, 1204-5 (1979); Zimmerman v. Berrie, 10 D.&C.3d 110 (1979); Trzesniowski v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 59 D.&C.2d 44 (1973); and In Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts L

21981–1987
Com. v. Lehman, P. green
pasuperct · 2022
1 sentence

2025Lehman, 275 A.3d at 523 (quoting Commonwealth v. Mrozek, 657 A.2d 997, 998 (Pa. Super. 1995)).

12025–2025
California University of PA v. B. Schackner and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette green
pacommwct · 2017
1 sentence

2023Cal. Univ. of Pa., 168 A.3d at 421 (quoting Pa. Dep’t of Educ. v. Bagwell, 131 A.3d 638, 656 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015)).

12023–2023
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Fleming green
pa · 2010
1 sentence

2023Pennsylvania Department of Education v. Bagwell (Bagwell 2015), 114 A.3d 1113 , 1123-24 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (citing, in part, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Fleming, 924 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2007), aff’d by an equally divided court, 992 A.2d 65 (Pa. 2010)). 10 Senior Judge Kelley, Special Master in Levy I, concluded as follows regarding whether and to what extent descriptions of legal services may be redacted under the attorney-client privilege: To the extent that the documents specify the issues or laws researched by the attorneys, specific services provided and the names of individua

12023–2023
Custom Designs & Manufacturing Co. v. Sherwin-Williams Co. green
pasuperct · 2012
1 sentence

2015Nationwide, 924 A.2d at 1264 , quoting Commonwealth v. Mzroek, 657 A.2d 997, 998 (Pa. Super. 1995); Custom Designs, 39 A.3d at 376 .

12015–2015
In re Thirty-third Statewide Investigating Grand Jury green
pa · 2014
1 sentence

2015The actual beneficiary of this policy is not only the client but also the justice system, which “depends on frank and open client-attorney communication.” Id. at 217 . - 29 - J-A04009-15 J-A04010-15 For a party to invoke the privilege, the following elements must be established: 1) The asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client. 2) The person to whom the communication was made is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate. 3) The communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed by his client, without the presence of strangers, for the purpose of

12015–2015
cluster 676508 green
ca1 · 1994
12002–2002

Statutes the citing opinions construe

PA § 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5928 (16) PA § 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5916 (7) PA § 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5944 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

PA 44 (1981–2026) RI 9 (1984–2017) DE 5 (1970–1990) DC 2 (1995–2003) FL 2 (1980–1999)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check