# Colman v. Heidenreich

> Indiana Supreme Court · October 13, 1978 · 269 Ind. 419

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9517403

## Case

- **Full name:** David J. Colman v. Stephen Heidenreich, Michael Tabereaux and Charles Tabereaux
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 13, 1978
- **Citations:** 269 Ind. 419; 381 N.E.2d 866; 1978 Ind. LEXIS 795
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by DeBruler
- **Judges:** Pivarnik, Debruler
- **Cited by:** 30 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9517403

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
— The majority, after having set forth prevailing legal thought and the legal standards applicable to deciding whether a communication is to be considered confidential by reason of the attorney-client privilege, does not permit its decision to be determined by such thoughts and standards as did the Court of Appeals. The attorney testified that the information at stake was imparted to him in an oral statement made by a client in the middle of an interview being conducted for the purpose of providing the client legal advice. The client believed that this information ‘Vas relevant to the primary discussion.” The lawyer believed that it was not a mere “volunteered aside,” and actually provided legal advice in response to it. Surely this satisfies every legal test espoused in the majority opinion for determining when a communication between client and lawyer shall be deemed a confidential communication.
Note. — Reported at 381 N.E.2d 866 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9517403. Public record. Not legal advice.