United States v. Cote’s Empirical Analysis
456 F.2d 142 · 1972
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably In re Sealed Case (1982), United States v. Davis (1981)
48 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 7602
Relies on Foti v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Abel v. United States · United States v. Kovel · Colton v. United States · Brown 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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not only to the transmitted data but also as to the details underlying that information.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nor is the loss of the privilege confined to `the particular words used to express the communication's content' but extends `to the substance of a communication,' since the disclosure of `any significant part' of a communication waives the privilege and requires the attorney to disclose `the details underlying the data which was to be published.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Notwithstanding our recognition that the attorney-client privilege attached to the information contained in the accountant’s workpapers under the circumstances existing here, we find that by filing the amended returns the taxpayers communicated, at least in part, the substance of that information to the government, and they must now disclose the detail underlying the reported data. A client may waive the privilege which protects what he earlier confided to his attorney or his attorney to him. See 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2327 (McNaughton Rev. 1961). Here, Cote, the accountant, testified that the information on his workpapers was later transcribed onto the amended returns which were filed by the taxpayers with the government. This disclosure effectively waived the privilege not only to the transmitted data but also as to the details underlying that information. As stated in United States v. Tellier, 255 F.2d 441 , 448 (2 Cir.1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 821 , 79 S.Ct. 33 , 3 L.Ed.2d 62 : “[T]he privilege attaches to the substance of a communication and not to the particular words used to express the communication’s content.” See also United States v. Shibley, 112 F.Supp. 734 , 742 (S.D.Cal.1953). Cf. Rule 5-11, Proposed Rules of Evidence, supra note 2 [disclosure of “any significant part” of a communication waives the privilege]; 8 Wigmore, supra, § 2327 at 638 [the “doctrine of completeness” is analogous to this principle]; McCormick, Law of Evidence § 93 (1954).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.