United States v. Kendrick’s Empirical Analysis
331 F.2d 110 · 1964
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 4 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2022 · most notably Pate v. Robinson (1966), 204 W. Va. 58 - State v. Rodoussakis (1998)
24 federal appellate · 4 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 4245 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · Dusky v. United States · V. P. Serodino, Inc. v. United States · Hunt v. Blackburn · Bishop v. United States
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Communications made in confidence by a client to his attorney are protected by the attorney-client privilege. It is the substance of the communications which is protected, however, not the fact that there have been communications. Excluded from the privilege, also, are physical characteristics of the client, such as his complexion, his demeanor, his bearing, his sobriety and his dress. Such things are observable by anyone who talked with the client, and there is nothing, in the usual case, to suggest that the client intends his attorney’s observations of such matters to be confidential. In short, the privilege protects only the client’s confidences, not things which, at the time, are not intended to be held in the breast of the lawyer, even though the attorney-client relation provided the occasion for the lawyer’s observation of them. See generally VIII Wigmore, Evidence (McNaughton Revision) § 2306.” [Footnote omitted.] Id. at 113-114 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If trial counsel in a criminal case could be called by the Government and asked to give an opinion as to the accused’s competency and ability to assist in the defense, he could necessarily also be asked for the factual data upon which he premised his opinion. These questions would open to inquiry by the Government the . .. relationship between the accused and his counsel. Such revelations would be a violation of the attorney-client privilege and would also invade an accused’s right to counsel in the trial of the criminal charge.” 230 F.2d at 223-24 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any expression as to the client's mental competency necessarily embrace [s] more than facts observable by anyone it comprehend[s] conclusions drawn in the course of an association that is uniquely regarded in the law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Meeks · State v. Meeks
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.