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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Mrozekgreen2 sentences1999Mass. 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 | 8 | 8 |
Yocabet v. UPMC Presbyteriangreen2 sentences2026The 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. | 5 | 5 |
DAGES v. Carbon Countygreen2 sentences2022Dages 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; | 3 | 4 |
PA Dept. of Ed. v. R. Bagwell PSU v. R. Bagwellgreen2 sentences2023Cal. 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 . | 2 | 3 |
United States v. United Shoe MacHinery Corporationgreen2 sentences1984The 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 | 2 | 3 |
Red Vision Systems, Inc. v. National Real Estate Information Services, L.P.green2 sentences2017Id. 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). | 2 | 3 |
Carbis Walker, LLP v. Hill, Barth and King, LLCgreen2 sentences2025Carbis 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. | 2 | 2 |
Levy v. Senate of Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences2025In 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 | 2 | 2 |
In re Westinghouse Electric Corp. Uranium Contracts Litigationgreen2 sentences1987See 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. | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Trolenegreen2 sentences1987See 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 | 2 | 2 |
Ford-Bey, W. v. Professional Anesthesia Servicesgreen2 sentences2025Of 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 . | 1 | 2 |
Maleski v. Corporate Life Insurancegreen2 sentences2019Id. 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) ). | 1 | 2 |
Twp. of Neshannock v. Kirila Contractors, Inc.green1 sentence2022Twp. of Neshannock v. Kirila Contractors, Inc., 181 A.3d 467, 473 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Smith Ex Rel. Smith Butz, LLC v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protectiongreen1 sentence2020Prot., 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 | 1 | 1 |
Bonds v. Bondsgreen2 sentences2007Nationwide, 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. | 1 | 1 |
| Brennan v. Brennangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bagwell v. Pennsylvania Department of Education
green
2 sentences2021Bagwell 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 | 4 | 2015–2021 |
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Fleming
green
2 sentences2023Pennsylvania 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 . | 3 | 2015–2023 |
Office of the Governor v. R.H. Davis, Jr.
green
2 sentences2023Id. 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). | 2 | 2020–2023 |
Upjohn Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences2019Id. 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) ). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Tracy v. Tracy
green
2 sentences1987See 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 | 2 | 1981–1987 |
Turner v. Warren
green
2 sentences1987See 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 | 2 | 1981–1987 |
Alexander v. Queen
green
2 sentences1987See 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 | 2 | 1981–1987 |
Loutzenhiser v. Doddo
green
2 sentences1987See 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 | 2 | 1981–1987 |
Cridge's Estate
green
2 sentences1987See 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 | 2 | 1981–1987 |
Nadler v. Warner Company
green
2 sentences1987See 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 | 2 | 1981–1987 |
Com. v. Lehman, P.
green
1 sentence2025Lehman, 275 A.3d at 523 (quoting Commonwealth v. Mrozek, 657 A.2d 997, 998 (Pa. Super. 1995)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
California University of PA v. B. Schackner and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
green
1 sentence2023Cal. Univ. of Pa., 168 A.3d at 421 (quoting Pa. Dep’t of Educ. v. Bagwell, 131 A.3d 638, 656 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015)). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Fleming
green
1 sentence2023Pennsylvania 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 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Custom Designs & Manufacturing Co. v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
green
1 sentence2015Nationwide, 924 A.2d at 1264 , quoting Commonwealth v. Mzroek, 657 A.2d 997, 998 (Pa. Super. 1995); Custom Designs, 39 A.3d at 376 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In re Thirty-third Statewide Investigating Grand Jury
green
1 sentence2015The 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 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| cluster 676508 green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.