Ex Parte Enzor’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently October 1996 · most notably Garner v. Wolfinbarger (1970), United States v. Woodall (1970)
4 federal appellate · 23 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 Ex Parte McDonough · White v. State · 51 Cal. 2d 616 - Brunner v. Superior Court · Mobile & Montgomery Railway Co. v. Yeates · Jordan v. Jordan
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is agreed that [§ 12-21-161 ] is but a declaration of the law on privileged communication between attorney and client previously administered by the courts ['to which it contributes nothing.' Guiterman, Rosenfield Co. v. Culbreth , 219 Ala. 382 , 122 So. 619 (1929)]."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The essential facts here are that the undisclosed client came to petitioner during a political campaign in which the circuit judge, the circuit solicitor, the sheriff and the probate judge were or had been candidates in contested races. This client had been an election official in the first primary and was to serve in the same capacity for the runoff. He told petitioner in confidence that a third party had offered to bribe him to violate the election laws, or that he had accepted a bribe to such end; and requested petitioner's legal opinion as to what he should do under the circumstances. "Petitioner advised the client to count the ballots correctly, but could not recall whether or not his client had been offered a bribe or had in fact taken one prior to the consultation. "If the client had already accepted the bribe, he had violated the law and the authorities seem to be uniform that, in such a case, the identity of the client would be privileged. The authorities are also in agreement that the privilege does not apply to communications in which advice is sought to cover future or contemplated crimes. 58 Am.Jur., Witnesses, § 516, p. 289; 97 C.J.S. Witnesses 285, p. 812. "This is a close case and has not been without difficulty in deciding, but we choose to follow [ Ex parte McDonough , 170 Cal. 230 , 149 P. 566 (1915),] in this delicate field of attorney-client relationship, and hold that under the circumstances of this case, the privilege did attach, and petitioner correct”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"No attorney or his clerk shall be competent or compelled to testify in any court in this state for or against the client as to any matter or thing, knowledge of which may have been acquired from the client, or as to advice or counsel to the client given by virtue of the relation as attorney or given by reason of anticipated employment as attorney unless called to testify by the client, but shall be competent to testify, for or against the client, as to any matter or thing the knowledge of which may have been acquired in any other manner."”
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.