CIGANA CORP. v. Spears
Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
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
- Weisel Enterprises, Inc. v. CurryTexas Supreme Court · 1986
- Williams v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1937
- Ott v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1920
- Anderson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1924
- Helton v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1984