GOLDFARB

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

• Boyles v. Mid-Florida Television Corp., 431 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
  …o the attorney. An attorney’s involvement in, or recommendation of, a transaction does not place a cloak of secrecy around all the incidents of such a transaction. Fischel at 211-12. See also U.S. v. Goldfarb, 328 F. 2d 280 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 976, 84 S.Ct. 1883, 12 L.Ed.2d 746 (1964). Here, the privilege is invoked to avoid questions as to policy rationales behind programming decisions. No actual communications are sought by the questions, but rather only the reasons for the decisions that…
• Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1965)
  …order to resolve a seeming conflict with our later decision in Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, and to settle important questions concerning federal injunctions against state criminal prosecutions threatening constitutionally protected expression. 377 U. S. 976. We reverse. HH In Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, the fountainhead of federal injunctions against state prosecutions, the Court characterized the power and its proper exercise in broad terms: it would be justified where state officers . . threate…
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings. United States v. Knox Jones, 517 F.2d 666 (5th Cir. 1975)
  …2 F. 2d 315, 332-33 (common-law privilege does not shield certain activities of attorneys on behalf of employer clients where LMR-DA requires reporting of such activities); United States v. Goldfarb, 6 Cir. 1964, 328 F. 2d 280, 281-82, cert. denied, 377 U.S. 976, 84 S.Ct. 1883, 12 L.Ed.2d 746 (1964) (enlightened discussion; grand jury sought lawyer’s testimony about real estate deal between suspect and witness-lawyer’s client; questions did not call for disclosure of any communications from client himself —…