DiCenzo v. Izawa

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that prior to codification, the “common-law attorney-client privilege [has been] long recognized by the courts of Hawaii”
• stating that Rule 503 codified the common law attorney-client privilege, which had been long recognized by Hawaii courts
• stating that Rule 503 codified the common law attorney-client privilege, which had been long recognized by Hawaii courts
• noting that HRE Rule 503 “codified the common-law attorney-client privilege long recognized by the courts of Hawaii”
• explaining that “lawyers can act effectively only if they are fully advised of the facts by the parties they represent and disclosure will be promoted if the client knows that what he tells his lawyer cannot be extorted from the lawyer” (internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipses omitted
• refusing to apply the privilege to statements to an insurance investigator

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).