Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

United States v. Silverman

United States v. Silverman, 439 F.2d 1198 (2d Cir. 1970)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1970-12-11
Topic
litigation

PER CURIAM. Appellant’s petition for a rehearing suggests that our opinion makes an exception to the attorney-client confidential communication rules. This was not the intent of the opinion. To avoid any such impression, the paragraph of the decision filed July 1, 1970, reported in 430 F.2d at page 122 and reading “The privilege as commonly formulated *1199* * * ” and continuing to the paragraph on page 122 (right-hand column) reading “In view of the position * * ” in the opinion reported at 430 F.2d 106, is deleted. However, with respect to the Friedland report, we believe that under the circumstances it was properly received in evidence.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Silverman. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
27 opinions
UNITED STATES v. SILVERMAN,439 F.2d 1198(2nd Cir. 1970)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Milton SILVERMAN, Appellant.
Nos. 494, 561, Dockets 33584, 34392.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
December 11, 1970.
On Petition for Rehearing of430 F.2d 106.
Paul, Weiss, Goldberg, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison, New York City, by Simon H. Rifkind, Edward N. Costikyan and Theodore W. Striggles, New York City, of counsel, for appellant.
Before MOORE, FRIENDLY and HAYS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant's petition for a rehearing suggests that our opinion makes an exception to the attorney-client confidential communication rules. This was not the intent of the opinion. To avoid any such impression, the paragraph of the decision filed July 1, 1970, reported in 430 F.2d at page 122 and reading "The privilege as commonly formulatedPage 1199* * *" and continuing to the paragraph on page 122 (right-hand column) reading "In view of the position * *" in the opinion reported at430 F.2d 106, is deleted. However, with respect to the Friedland report, we believe that under the circumstances it was properly received in evidence.

We have considered all the other grounds advanced in the petition for rehearing, and deny the petition except as noted above.