Ex Parte Griffith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

62 state decisions

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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Whether a communication by a client to his attorney is privileged is a question of fact to be determined by the court. A witness, be he attorney or client, is not entitled to decide the question for himself. Thornton on Attorneys at Law, Vol. 1, Section 96, and authorities therein cited. "There are limitations on the application of the rule of privileged communications. As pointed out in Sawyer v. Stanley , 241 Ala. 39 , 1 So.2d 21 , the perpetration of a fraud is outside the scope of professional duty of an attorney, and that the great majority of cases hold that the privilege 'protecting communications between attorney and client is lost if the relation is abused, as where the client seeks advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud.' The reason for this exception to the general rule is that if a client discloses his fraudulent purposes, and the attorney refuses to be connected with it, there cannot be said to be professional employment, and consequently no privilege accrues; if the client does not disclose his fraudulent purpose, there is no confidential relationship established, and no attaching privilege; if an attorney knowing the facts and fraudulent purpose agrees to aid in the perpetration of the fraud, he then becomes a party to it, and the communications made to him cease to be privileged. Thornton, supra, Sec. 122; 58 Am.Jur., Witnesses, Sec. 517. "Where false allegations are made in pleadings in order to invoke the jurisdiction of a court, and false ”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Exxon Corp. v. DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RES. · McClary v. Walsh

2. “"Our cases make clear the distinction between a criminal contempt and a civil contempt. Our cases hold that statutory limitations on punishment for contempt (Sections 9, 126, and 143 of Title 13, Code of 1940) apply only to criminal contempt, and not to civil contempt. Ex parte King , 263 Ala. 487 , 83 So.2d 241 ; Ex parte Dickens , 162 Ala. 272 , 50 So. 218 . "In Ex parte Dickens , 162 Ala. 272 , 50 So. 220 , it is stated: "`A "civil contempt" consists in failing to do something, ordered to be done by a court in a civil action, for the benefit of the opposing party therein.' "In Ex parte Hill , 229 Ala. 501 , 158 So. 531 , this court wrote: "`It is also said that the limitations provided by statute were not intended to restrict the power of the court to enforce its orders and decrees. That right is called a proceeding to declare a civil contempt. A criminal contempt is one in which the purpose of the proceeding is to impose punishment for disobedience to the orders of the court. A civil contempt invokes the power of the court to commit one who is continuing to violate its orders until he complies with them. This court has held that the statutory limitations do not apply to civil contempts as thus defined. Ex parte Dickens , supra; Ex parte Stickney , 40 Ala. 160 .'"”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 46 Ala. App. 617 - Muery v. Muery · 429 So. 2d 1100 - Ex Parte Hudson

3. ““Hearings before the Board of Commissioners of the Alabama State Bar, or a commissioner duly appointed to conduct such hearing, is, strictly speaking, neither a civil nor a criminal one. Its sole purpose is to purge the bar of a member, whose conduct has, since his admission, rendered him unfit to' remain a member of the bar. ***”,.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Griffith v. State ex rel. Scholl