Legal Opinion · Dissent

CIGANA CORP. v. Spears

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)

Decided September 21, 1992No. 04-92-00153-CVPublished

1DissentPeeples, Justice

I respectfully dissent. I would grant the writ as to most of the documents.

I agree with the majority that the lawyer-to-lawyer communications are privileged and that respondent’s order sustaining the crime-fraud exception to the privilege is absolutely unfounded.

I disagree with the majority’s apparent holding that there must be specific evidence that each person who read each document must be a representative. Under Weisel Enterprises, Inc. v. Curry, 718 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex.1986), a court may look at the documents themselves to see whether privilege has been established.

Several documents are…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Weisel Enterprises, Inc. v. CurryTexas Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Williams v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1937
  3. Ott v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1920
  4. Anderson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1924
  5. Helton v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API