United States v. Osborn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Confidential communications between attorney and client for the purpose of preparing the client’s will ... are privileged during the testator’s lifetime and, also, after the testator’s death unless sought to be disclosed in litigation between the testator’s heirs, legatees, devisees, or other parties, all of whom claim under the deceased client.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Estate of Hamilton v. Morris · Zook v. Pesce

2. “These documents, like those in Fisher, were not prepared by the clients, nor do they contain any testimonial declarations by the clients. So far as the record shows, the documents were voluntarily prepared. See Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. at 409 , 96 S.Ct. 1569 . The production of these documents, business documents, involves no testimonial self-incrimination. Any possible tacit concessions made by the act of producing the documents, e. g., that such documents exist and are possessed or controlled by the client , and that the client believes they are the documents described by the subpoena, do not rise, under circumstances shown in this record, to the level of “testimony” within the protection of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 410-13 , 96 S.Ct. 1569 ; see Matter of Fischel, 557 F.2d 209 (9th Cir. 1977); Matter of Witness Before the Grand Jury, 546 F.2d 825 (9th Cir. 1976); Matter of Fred R. Witte Center Glass No. 3, 544 F.2d 1026 (9th Cir. 1976). We hold that the documents would not have been protected by the clients’ Fifth Amendment privilege when still in their possession, 9 and, therefore, that these documents are not protected by the attorney-client privilege.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. In re Grand Jury Empanelled

3. “"* * * the effect of the assertion of the attorney-client privilege is to withhold relevant information from the finder of fact, the privilege is to be applied only when necessary to achieve its purpose of encouraging clients to make full disclosure to their attorneys." United States v. Osborn, 561 F.2d 1334, 1339 (9th Cir.1977).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Ogle