Hueck v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 2017
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
Relies on Fisher v. United States · United States v. Jones · United States v. Hodge & Zweig · In re Disbarment of Finkelstein · In re Grand Jury Proceedings
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The attorney-client privilege applies in proceedings in which an attorney '... may be called as a witness or otherwise required to produce evidence concerning a client.' Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 1.6. In addition, IND.CODE § 34-1-14-5 states that [tlhe following persons shall not be competent witnesses: [ ...] Third. Attorneys, as to confidential communication made to them in the course of their professional business, and to advice given in such cases' The attorney-client privilege establishes a provision for a person to give complete and confidential information to an attorney, so the attorney may be fully advised in his services to this client. Colman v. Heidemreich (1978), 269 Ind. 419, 422 , 381 N.E.2d 866, 868 . At the same time it assures the client that the confidences will not be revealed. Id. However, it has been cautioned that since the privilege prevents the disclosure of relevant information and impedes the quest for the truth, the privilege should be narrowly construed. In re Shargel (2d Cir.1984), 742 F.2d 61, 62 ; In re Special, September 1988, Grand Jury (Klein) (S.D.Ind.1985), 608 F.Supp. 588, 542 , aff'd, 716 F.2d 628 ; accord Fisher v. United States (1976), 425 U.S. 391, 408 , 96 S.Ct. 1569, 1577 , 48 LEd.2d 39, 51. The privilege provides '"that when an attorney is consulted on business within the seope of his profession, the communications on the subject between him and his client should be treated as confidential." ' Colman, 269 Ind. at 428 , 381 N.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'when an attorney is consulted on business within the scope of his profession, the communications on the subject between him and his client should be treated as confidential.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“courts have developed an exception to the general rule. Identity or fee arrangements may be privileged where revealing the third party's identity or the fee arrangement would be tantamount to the disclosure of a confidential communication.... Whether [the] client's identity or fee arrangement is privileged depends on the facts of each case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.