31 Cal. App. 2d 259 - Mitchell v. Towne’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Appellant further contends that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence a letter addressed to Lawrence Livingston and signed by McClure; and in permitting the witness Wagner, an attorney in the employ of Livingston, to testify concerning certain conversations between Livingston and Wagner. The foundation of this contention is that said communications were privileged communications between an attorney and his client. (Code Civ. Proe., sec. 1881, subd. 2.) The record shows that Wagner was called into Livingston’s office for the purpose of witnessing the conversation and not in his professional capacity. It is true that the privilege extends to communications made in the presence of an attorney’s clerk, but this is true only where the clerk is present in that capacity. Where, as here, he is present for the express purpose of witnessing a conversation and the client acquiesces in his presence as such, the case does not differ from one where statements are made in the presence of a third party who is not an attorney. The letter, to which reference was made above, was dictated by Livingston in the presence of Wagner and was then signed by McClure. Under these circumstances the privilege was waived both as to the letter and conversation. Communications between attorney and client are privileged only when they are intended by the client to be confidential (Mission Film, Gorp. v. Chadwick Pictures Gorp., 207 Cal. 386 [ 278 P. 855 ]), and if they are made in the presence of a t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McKnew v. Superior Court

2. “'... where issue is joined on a plea of the statute and the evidence is conflicting as to when, with reference to the filing of the complaint, a cause of action accrued, the question is properly submitted to the jury as a mixed question of law and fact. (Pacific Imp. Co. v. Maxwell, 26 Cal.App. 265 [ 146 P. 900 ]; Towle v. Sweeney, supra, [ 2 Cal.App. 29 ( 83 P. 74 ) ]; Crawford v. Duncan, 61 Cal.App. 647 [ 215 P. 573 ]), and the case may not be taken from the jury where the plea of the statute is interposed and there is evidence to support the plea. (Heilbron v. Heinlen, 72 Cal. 376 [ 14 P. 24 ].)'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Taylor v. Wright