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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 7 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of Fmc Corporation, Douglas E. Kliever and Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of Fmc Corporation, Douglas E. Kliever and Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton Anchor | green | “the client's intention controls and the privilege may be denied even if the lawyer is altogether innocent.” | 3 |
| 2 | In Re GRAND JURY SUBPOENA | green | “a 'prima facie showing' requires presentation of 'evidence which, if believed by the fact-finder, would be sufficient to support a finding that the elements of the crime-fraud exception were met.” | 2 |
| 3 | In Re GRAND JURY SUBPOENA | green | “evidence which, if believed by the fact-finder, would be sufficient to support a finding that the elements of the crime-fraud exception were met.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.