Skip to main content
Fourth Circuit· 12/20/2007

Weinberger v. Tucker

Citations

  • 510 F.3d 486
  • 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 29419
  • 2007 WL 4442449

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that privity was established between the attorney and client under the particular circumstances
  • stating that under Fourth Circuit and Virginia decisions, the test for privity is the same
  • stating that the test for privity is “whether the interests of one party are so identified with the interests of another that representation by one party is representation of the other’s legal right” (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • finding privity in attorney- client relationship because of the attorney’s interests in so identified with his client’s
  • finding an attorney in privity with client not because of the attorney-client relationship but due to specific identity of interests
  • collecting cases and noting that “[c]ourts have held that the attorney-client relationship itself establishes privity”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wilkinson, Motz, Gregory

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Weinberger v. Tucker

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.