48 Cited authorities

  1. Upjohn Co. v. United States

    449 U.S. 383 (1981)   Cited 3,568 times   98 Legal Analyses
    Holding that communications between corporate counsel and a corporation's employees made for the purpose of rendering legal advice are protected by the attorney-client privilege
  2. Fisher v. United States

    425 U.S. 391 (1976)   Cited 1,844 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that act of producing evidence may, in some circumstances, trigger Fifth Amendment safeguards
  3. Branzburg v. Hayes

    408 U.S. 665 (1972)   Cited 1,687 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that government need not “demonstrate some ‘compelling need’ for a newsman's testimony”
  4. Spectrum Sys. Int'l Corp. v. Chem. Bank

    78 N.Y.2d 371 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 494 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the document at issue was exempt from discovery where "the narration relate[d] and integrate[d] the facts with the law firm's assessment of the client's legal position"
  5. In re Von Bulow

    828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987)   Cited 326 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that party implicitly waived his attorney-client privilege when his attorney published privileged material in a book, and the client assisted in promoting the book, as to the matters discussed in the book
  6. Matter of Priest v. Hennessy

    51 N.Y.2d 62 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 338 times
    Holding that no attorney-client relationship had been shown to exist between attorneys and third parties who had paid for the representation of certain of the attorneys' clients
  7. Rossi v. Blue Cross

    73 N.Y.2d 588 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 230 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding attorney-client privilege does not apply to communications concerning business matters
  8. In re Santa Fe Int'l Corp.

    272 F.3d 705 (5th Cir. 2001)   Cited 137 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "party asserting a privilege exemption from discovery bears the burden of demonstrating its applicability"
  9. United States v. McPartlin

    595 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir. 1979)   Cited 255 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that statements of a former co-defendant remain protected by attorney-client privilege because waiver of the privilege is not inferred from the disclosure in confidence to a co-party's attorney for a common purpose
  10. People v. Osorio

    75 N.Y.2d 80 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 169 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding "communications made to counsel through a hired interpreter or one serving as an agent of either attorney or client to facilitate communication, generally will be privileged