Canfield v. Sandock’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably McCullough v. Archbold Ladder Co. (1993), Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. v. Markley (2006)
40 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
Relies on Hoffman v. United States · Collins v. Bair · Chustak v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co. · Masonic Mutual Benefit Ass'n v. Beck · State Ex Rel. Pollard v. Criminal Ct. of Marion Cty.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The keeping of professional confidences existing between an attorney and client is enforced by two mechanisms, 1.C. 34-1-14-5, which renders attorneys incompetent to testify, and Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 1.6, which forbids attorneys to 'reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation' The rationale underlying the attorney-client privilege, which was recognized at common law, and seope of the enforcement mechanisms have been explained by this Court as follows: 'A fundamental principle in the client-lawyer relationship is that the lawyer maintain confidentiality of information relating to the representation. The client is hereby encouraged to communicate fully and frankly with the lawyer even as to embarrassing or legally damaging subject matter. The principle of confidentiality is given effect in two related bodies of law, attorney-client privilege (which includes the work product doctrine) in the law of evidence and the rule of confidentiality established in professional ethics. The attorney-client privilege applies in judicial and other proceedings in which a lawyer may be called as a witness or otherwise required to produce evidence concerning a clhent. The rule of client-lawyer confidentiality applies in situations other than those where evidence is sought from the lawyer through compulsion of law." Prof.Cond.R. 1.6 comment (emphasis added [in original] ). The attorney-client privilege protects against judicial”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“has been justified on the basis that its recognition encourages free communication and frank disclosure between patient and physician which, in turn, provide assistance in proper diagnosis and appropriate treatment. 'To deny the privilege, it was thought, would destroy the confidential nature of the physician-patient relationship and possibly cause one suffering from a particular ailment to withhold pertinent information of an embarrassing or otherwise confidential nature for fear of being publicly disclosed.”
4 later decisions 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.