5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cox v. HP Inc.green2 sentences2022See Cox v. HP Inc., 368 Or. 477 , 495 n.10, 492 P.3d 1245 (2021); P. Borchers et al., supra, 71 Emory L.J. 2022See Cox v. HP Inc., 368 Or. 477 , 495 n.10, 492 P.3d 1245 (2021); P. Borchers et al., supra, 71 Emory L.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Claus Von Bulow, Martha Von Bulow, by Her Next Friends Alexander Auersperg, and Annie Laurie Auersperg-Kneissl v. Claus Von Bulow
green
2 sentences2000Id., citing In re Dayco Corp. Derivative Securities Litigation , supra, 99 ("Generally, waiver of a privilege occurs when actions by the holder would make it unfair to insist that the privilege still exists.") (emphasis added); In re Von Bulow , supra, ("Applying the fairness doctrine, we hold therefore that the extrajudicial disclosure of an attorney-client communication — one not subsequently used by the client in a judicial proceeding to his adversary's prejudice — does not waive the privilege as to the undisclosed portions of the communications.") (emphasis added). 2000The Second Circuit holds in In re Von Bulow , supra, 103: "Matters actually disclosed in public lose their privileged status because they obviously are no longer confidential. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Sharp v. Mitchell
green
1 sentence1997While numerous cases serve to illustrate the fairness doctrine, i.e., Sharp v. Mitchell , 209 Conn. 59 (1988); Gallo v. G. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Gallo v. G. Fox & Co.
green
1 sentence1997Fox Co. , 148 Conn. 327 (1961); and Patterson v. Szabo Food Service of New York. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation
green
1 sentence1991Blonder-Tongue v. University Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 , 325 (1970). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
La Petite Auberge, Inc. v. Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights
green
1 sentence1988We do not agree with the trial court’s analysis of La Petite Auherge vis-a-vis its “employing the reason in Shively as its predicate.” Although the Rhode Island Supreme Court agreed with the fairness principle enunciated in Shively , it immediately footnoted that “agreement.” That footnote said since the Rhode Island statute “is broad enough to empower the commission to issue discovery subpoenas at the request of a party to a contested case, we do not need to hold, as the Shively court did, that the common law supplies its own authority, in the absence of stat ute, to an administrative agency | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.