Also known as: generally-known · judicial notice facts
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
An adjudicative fact qualifies as generally known when it is common knowledge throughout the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. Such a fact is not subject to reasonable dispute and may therefore be judicially noticed without formal proof.
An adjudicative fact qualifies as generally known when it is common knowledge throughout the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. Such a fact is not subject to reasonable dispute and may therefore be judicially noticed without formal proof.
Information relating to a former client's representation becomes generally known when it enters the public domain through filings or other disclosures. A lawyer may then use or reveal that information without violating the duty of confidentiality.
Information relating to a former client's representation becomes generally known when it enters the public domain through filings or other disclosures. A lawyer may then use or reveal that information without violating the duty of confidentiality.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Maria Lopez and other diners sue Harvest Bistro after a food-poisoning outbreak at a city festival. Harvest Bistro asks the court to recognize that the annual street festival draws thousands of visitors and ranks as the city's largest event. The court grants the request because residents throughout the jurisdiction commonly know these background facts about the local calendar.
Teresa sues Apex Builders after her balcony collapses. Apex asks the court to recognize that the city experiences a well-known rainy season from late fall through early spring. The court grants the request because the seasonal pattern constitutes common local knowledge within the jurisdiction.
The United States prosecuted Jerri C. Lewis for bank robbery after FBI Special Agent Michael E. Degnan identified her from photographs taken during a robbery on October 9, 1986. Degnan recognized Lewis from his prior work as case agent in an earlier bank robbery prosecution that resulted in her conviction, and Lewis was arrested on October 20, 1986. On October 21, 1986, Degnan and Special Agent Fujita visited the prison ward of San Francisco General Hospital to interview Lewis, where they learned from the hall nurse that she had just returned from surgery to remove an abscess on her left shoulder caused by narcotics injection. The agents spoke with her for approximately two minutes, during which Degnan asked whether she was going to come clean and Lewis replied that she would, and when asked how many robberies they would discuss she responded that the number was three; the agents then told her they would return the next day. The agents returned on October 22, 1986, and the hall nurse informed them that Lewis was alert and not under any medication that would affect her ability to be interviewed. Lewis appeared alert, looked much better than the day before, and stated she was feeling okay. Agent Fujita gave her a copy of the FO 395 Advice of Rights and Waiver Form, read it to her, and she signed it to indicate waiver of counsel while acknowledging that no promises, threats, pressure, or coercion had been used against her. During the interview Lewis admitted committing three robberies and commented on photographs of the crimes shown to her. Lewis moved to suppress both statements, arguing in her memorandum that the October 21 statement was involuntary because she was a heroin addict suffering from drug withdrawal and was questioned hours after awakening from general anesthesia, and that the October 22 statement was obtained through exploitation of the prior admission. At the December 18, 1986 hearing on the motion, the district court stated that the first statement was not knowing and voluntary before hearing argument from counsel, relying on the judge's personal experience coming out of general anesthesia, even though the factual issues had been submitted on declarations filed by each party and the court stated it was resolving controverted facts in favor of the government while discounting the defendant's claims. The government appealed the suppression order. The appeal was submitted on the declarations, with the district court having accepted as true the facts set forth in Degnan's declaration and having rejected all contradictory statements in Lewis's declaration as untrue.
View case2 common questions
A court may take judicial notice when the fact is not subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction. Local facts such as the scale of an annual festival, the county's leading crop, or the timing of a rainy season qualify when they are common knowledge among residents.
Supporting sources
Generally known facts are those an average person in the jurisdiction would recognize without dispute, such as major local events or seasonal patterns. Specific case details, such as exact rainfall on particular dates, remain subject to ordinary proof even when broader patterns qualify for notice.
Supporting sources
Orlando previously represented Clear Energy in negotiating power-purchase agreements. Horizon Utilities later asks Orlando to challenge those same agreements in an antitrust suit. Because the executed contracts and supporting regulatory filings have been placed in the public record, Orlando may rely on their terms without breaching confidentiality to Clear Energy.
1 common questions
Information becomes generally known once it enters the public domain through regulatory filings or other disclosures. A lawyer may then use that information without violating the confidentiality duty to a former client under Rule 1.9(c)(1).
Supporting sources