Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 160 CONN 391 - Rienzo v. Santangelo

Rienzo v. Santangelo’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
5
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

6 district · 51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Olson v. Accessory Controls & Equipment Corp. (2000), Harrison v. State (1975)

6 district · 51 state decisions

270197119801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on State v. Hanna · Doyle v. Reeves · Turner's Appeal From Probate

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) where legal advice of any kind is sought; (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such; (3) communications relating to that purpose; (4) made in confidence; (5) by the client; (6) are at his instance permanently protected; (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser; (8) except the protection be waived.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “under the circumstances of this case we consider no essential distinction between the question, `What did you tell your attorney?' and the question in issue. The attorney-client privilege is not to be vitiated by a distinction in semantics. The resort to the question in issue went beyond the scope of proper cross-examination and was an improper invasion of privilege. It was clearly prejudicial and harmful.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “clear that by asking this question the defense counsel was trying to create the inference in the minds of the jury that the plaintiff must have related to her attorney a location where her injuries occurred other than that to which she had testified,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.