Legal Opinion
Gould, Larson, Bennet, Wells & McDonnell, P.C. v. Panico
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided April 12, 2005No. SC 17279PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KATZ, J.
The principal issue on appeal is whether, in the context of a will contest, the exception to the attorney-client privilege, as recognized by this court in Doyle v. Reeves, 112 Conn. 521, 152 A. 882 (1931), that communications between a decedent and the attorney who drafted the executed will may be disclosed, applies when the communications do not result in an executed will. Specifically, we consider whether, in a probate proceeding in the course of a dispute among heirs, an attorney may be compelled to disclose testamentary communications that have not culminated in an executed…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Swidler & Berlin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Blackburn v. CrawfordsSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Witt v. St. Vincent's Medical CenterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Glover v. PattenSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- State v. DuntzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Desclos v. Southern New Hampshire Medical CenterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2006
- State v. LenarzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
- Gast v. HallIndiana Court of Appeals · 2006
- State v. DavisConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Cox v. BurdickConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.