Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 392 SW2D 640 - Burger v. Crocker

Burger v. Crocker’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 2017

6 state decisions

20196519701980199020002010decided

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 State v. Faulkner · Garesché v. Lewis · State v. Lehman · Duncan v. Black · Green v. Corrigan

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

  1. ““It is true that after a crime has been committed the accused or guilty person may freely consult and even disclose his guilt to his attorney, in order to prepare his defense. In such circumstances, the law puts the seal of secrecy upon such communications. But neither under our statute, R.S.Mo.1909, § 6362, nor at common law, of which said statute is simply declaratory, can a person employ an attorney for the purpose of aiding and abetting him in the commission of a future crime or fraud, and thereby seal the lips of his lawyer to secrecy and thus prevent the exposure or detection of such crime or fraud. The privileged communication may be a shield of defense as to crime already committed, but it cannot be used as a sword or weapon of offense to enable persons to carry out contemplated crimes against society”.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[I]t was the duty, of Attorney Fensky, when he found, upon examining his client before the trial, that the ease ... could not be successfully maintained without perjury, ... to prevent the consummation of the contemplated crime and fraud by testifying to the facts as related to him by the plaintiff. Such communication was not privileged. ...”
    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.