State Ex Rel. Stovall v. Meneley

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a client’s disclosure of a communication eliminates any privilege he might have had in it, and citing with approval United States v. Buljubasic, 808 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1987
• concluding, in the context of quo watranto litigation undertaken to remove a county sheriff for giving false sworn testimony, that “laches ... does not apply when a' cause of action is brought by the State seeking to protect the public”
• refusing to apply loches when cause of action was brought to “protect the public”
• characterizing argument allegedly seeking an injunction as a fallacy and refusing to review the claim where the record indicated appellant intended to reargue issues already decided and to effectuate interlocutory-like appeal to strengthen likelihood of success in the district court
• party asserting attorney-client privilege bears burden of proof to establish all essential elements of it
• 'When faced with an affidavit of prejudice filed pursuant to K.S.A. 20-311d, this court has unlimited review, and on appeal must decide the legal sufficiency of the affidavit and not the truth of the facts alleged.'

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).