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.
5 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences1995The dissenters observed that Missouri precedent had already applied the attorney-client privilege to defense communications with an insurance adjuster; therefore, the statute did not bar the extension of the privilege to defense-retained psychiatrists. ( Carter, 641 S.W.2d at 64 (Seiler, J., dissenting, joined by Welliver & Bardgett, JJ.).) One of the dissenters noted that the majority's ruling *979 would cause attorneys to render ineffective assistance of counsel, Carter, 641 S.W.2d at 66-67 (Welliver, J., dissenting). 1995The dissenters observed that Missouri precedent had already applied the attorney-client privilege to defense communications with an insurance adjuster; therefore, the statute did not bar the extension of the privilege to defense-retained psychiatrists. ( Carter, 641 S.W.2d at 64 (Seiler, J., dissenting, joined by Welliver & Bardgett, JJ.).) One of the dissenters noted that the majority's ruling *979 would cause attorneys to render ineffective assistance of counsel, Carter, 641 S.W.2d at 66-67 (Welliver, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brunton v. Kruger
green
2 sentences2015Striegel’s attorney, Tibble, refused to comply with the discovery order and was found in contempt and fined $100, thus allowing the matter to be taken to the appellate court. ¶ 11 The appellate court held that the client, not the CPA, is the holder of the privilege ( 2014 IL App (4th) 130421, ¶ 43 ), and that the statutory accountant’s privilege is subject to the same testamentary exception as the common law attorney-client privilege (id. ¶ 46). 2015Striegel’s attorney, Tibble, refused to comply with the discovery order and was found in contempt and fined $100, thus allowing the matter to be taken to the appellate court. ¶ 11 The appellate court held that the client, not the CPA, is the holder of the privilege ( 2014 IL App (4th) 130421, ¶ 43 ), and that the statutory accountant’s privilege is subject to the same testamentary exception as the common law attorney-client privilege (id. ¶ 46). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Knuckles
green
2 sentences2001There, this court extended attorney-client privilege to communications between a defendant and a psychiatric expert, in order to “accord the common law attorney-client privilege the scope necessary to meet the complexities of modern legal practice.” Knuckles, 165 Ill. 2d at 135 . 2001There, this court extended attorney-client privilege to communications between a defendant and a psychiatric expert, in order to “accord the common law attorney-client privilege the scope necessary to meet the complexities of modern legal practice.” Knuckles , 165 Ill. 2d at 135 . | 2 | 2001–2001 |
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.