Clark v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis
183 F.2d 141 · 1950
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 2010
1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
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 Johnson v. Stevenson · Glover v. Patten · Keely v. Moore · Eicholtz v. Grunewald · Texas State Life Insurance v. Houghton
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant proffered testimony on those points. Some of that proffered evidence was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the witness who was offered had been the attorney for the decedent and therefore the testimony was privileged and could not be received in the case. We think that exclusion erroneous. Such testimony has in the past been held admissible. Glover v. Patten, 165 U.S. 394, 406-408 , 17 S.Ct. 411 , 41 L.Ed. 760 ; Olmstead v. Webb, 5 App. D.C. 38, 50-51 ; Eicholtz v. Grunewald, 313 Mich. 666 , 21 N.W.2d 914 ; Hugo v. Clark, 125 Va. 126 , 99 S.E. 521 ; See VIII Wigmore, Evidence Section 2314. The attorney-client privilege, unless waived, excludes what would otherwise be relevant evidence; the justification for this is the public interest in protecting the confidential character of such relationships. Without such privilege, full interchange of information, which is necessary to the proper conduct of the relationship, would not be possible. But because the privilege does preclude introduction of evidence, and thus hampers the trial court in correctly ascertaining the facts, it must be carefully confined in application to those situations which fall within the ambit of the purpose for which it was created. Here the client is dead. It is her disclosures which were sought to be introduced. They in no way discredit her. The proffer was of testimony as to the existence of the will and its contents. If decedent had executed a will, to exclude such testimony would”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McGhee v. Bryan“[Proponent of lost will] must show either that the will was in existence at the time of decedent's death or ... he must be able to show that the testatrix intended that the will remain in force, thus rebutting the presumption of revocation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.