STREETER

v.

ALABAMA

Citator

Cited By (32 total)

• Corry v. Meggs, 498 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
  …the payment of attorney fees are merely underlying facts of an attorney-client relationship, not confidential communications contemplated as privileged under the common law or the Code. Frank v. Tomlinson, 351 F. 2d 384 (5th Cir.1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1028, 86 S.Ct. 648, 15 L.Ed.2d 540 (1966); In re Slaughter, 694 F. 2d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir.1982). See also C. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence §§ 501.1 and 502.5 (2d ed. 1984). However, that general rule is subject to various exceptions, most notably the so-ca…
• In re State Attorney's Off. Investigative Subpoena Dated November 2 v. State, 444 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
  …lient will not amount to a revelation of any confidence or privileged information. The state reiterates the general rule that a client’s identity is not privileged. Anderson, supra; see Frank v. Tomlinson, 351 F. 2d 384 (5th Cir.1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1028, 86 S.Ct. 648, 15 L.Ed.2d 540 (1966). The privilege presupposes the attorney/client relationship, but does not attach to its creation. See generally, Annot., 16 A.L.R.3d 1047 (1967); 81 Am.Jur.2d Witnesses § 213 (1976). It is, indeed, an accurate g…
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings. United States v. Knox Jones, 517 F.2d 666 (5th Cir. 1975)
  …pplying the usual tests to unique fact situations. Along with many other courts,2 we have stated that “[t]he iden [*671] tity of a client is a matter not normally within the privilege, Frank v. Tomlinson, 351 F. 2d 384 (5th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1028, 86 S.Ct. 648, 15 L.Ed.2d 540 (1966), nor are matters involving the receipt of fees from a client usually privileged, see United States v. Finley, 434 F. 2d 596 (5th Cir. 1970).” United States v. Ponder, 5 Cir. 1973, 475 F. 2d 37, 39 (emphasis added…