Legal Opinion
Waldmann v. Waldmann
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 15, 1976No. 76-301PublishedCited by 52 opinions
1Per curiam
It is the public policy of this state that an attorney shall not testify concerning a communication made to him bv. his client in that relation. That policy lias been codified. R. C. 2317.02(A). Even when a case falls beyond the strict letter of R. C. 2317.02(A), the., principles of that section apply if the case is plainly within the reason and spirit of it. R. C. 2317.03(H).
The .confidentiality of a. client’s address in. a domestic relations matter, especially a divorce' action, .can be a vital feature of the action; it is not uncommon for a spouse who fears for her .or his safety to' need'…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In Re Martin, Jr.Ohio Supreme Court · 1943
- State ex rel. Lambdin v. BrentonOhio Supreme Court · 1970
- In Re HeileOhio Court of Appeals · 1939
3Cited by52 opinions
- Chandler v. DentonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1987
- Kelly B. ZANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- State v. TenchOhio Supreme Court · 2018
- Peyko v. FrederickOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- Jackson v. GregerOhio Supreme Court · 2006
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.