Legal Opinion

Brumwell v. Premo

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 30, 2014No. CC 12C11135; SC S060980PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.

This is the second of two cases that this court decides today regarding the interpretation and application of OEC 503(4)(c), the breach-of-duty exception to the lawyer-client privilege, OEC 503(2). In Longo v. Premo, 355 Or 525, 326 P3d 1152 (2014), we construed OEC 503(4)(c) to be a limited exception permitting disclosures of confidential information only as necessary for a lawyer to defend against allegations of breach of duty, and we directed the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring a post-conviction court to issue a protective order. For the reasons that follow, we…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Automotive Emporium, Inc. v. MurchisonOregon Supreme Court · 1980
  2. State Ex Rel. Johnson v. RichardsonOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  3. State v. BrumwellOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  4. State ex rel. Automobile Emporium, Inc. v. MurchisonOregon Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Longo v. PremoOregon Supreme Court · 2014

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Longo v. PremoOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Johnson v. PremoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
  3. Johnson v. PremoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API