State v. Kupchun (1977)
green
· 60 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 14 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
197920022026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
State v. MacDonald (2011)
State v. Kupchun, 117 N.H. 412, 415 (1977) (discussing RSA 329:26 and RSA 330-A:19, former psychologist-patient privilege).
discussing RSA 329:26 and RSA 330-A:19, former psychologist-patient privilege
green
State v. Barka (2004)
Traditionally, we have carefully guarded the confidential relationship between patients and their medical providers, State v. Kupchun, 117 N.H. 412, 415 (1977), to fulfill the legislature’s purpose of encouraging patients to fully divulge personal, and at times, embarrassing, information so their medical providers can, in turn, provide complete and appropriate medical treatment.
green
State v. Guay (2011)
Id. (emphasis added); see State v. Thresher, 122 N.H. 63, 72 (1982) (holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications, in part, because “use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense”); State v. Kupchun, 117 N.H. 412, 415 (1977) (citing Farrow when stating “the [physician/psychologist patient] privileges are not absolute and must yield when disclosure of the information concerned is considered essential”).
citing Farrow when stating “the [physician/psychologist patient] privileges are not absolute and must yield when disclosure of the information concerned is considered essential”
green
Desclos v. Southern New Hampshire Medical Center (2006)
State v. Kupchun, 117 N.H. 412, 415 (1977).
green
State v. Sawtell (2005)
State v. Kupchun, 117 N.H. 412, 415 (1977).
green
Ricciardi v. Sylvester (1995)
Although RSA 329:26 provides substantial protection to patient communications, the physician-patient privilege is "not absolute and must yield when disclosure of the information concerned is considered essential." State v. Kupchun, 117 N.H. 412, 415 (1977); Opinion of Justices, 117 N.H. 386, 388 (1977) ("Even a statutory privilege is not fixed and unbending and must yield to countervailing considerations . . . . " ) As support for the theory concerning waiver of the privileg…
green
State v. Elwell (1989)
Nelson v. Lewis, 130 N.H. at 109, 534 A.2d at 722 (where a plaintiff put her medical condition at issue in a civil malpractice suit); State v. Kupchun, 117 N.H. at 415-16 , 373 A.2d at 1327-28 (where treatment records of the State hospital were introduced at a defendant’s recommitment hearing).
where treatment records of the State hospital were introduced at a defendant’s recommitment hearing
green
Nelson v. Lewis (1987)
State v. Kupchun, 117 N.H. 412, 415 , 373 A.2d 1325, 1327 (1977).
green
In re Kathleen M. (1985)
State v. Kupchun, 117 N.H. 412, 415 , 373 A.2d 1325, 1327 (1977); State v. Farrow, 116 N.H. 731, 733 , 366 A.2d 1177, 1179 (1976).
green
State v. Merski (1981)
It was not intended to impede the administration of justice in the courts by the suppression of pertinent testimony.’ ” (Citation omitted.) In Opinion of the Justices, 117 N.H. 386, 388 , 373 A.2d 644, 646 (1977), we stated that “[e]ven a statutory privilege is not fixed and unbending and must yield to countervailing considerations. . . .” In the context of the disclosure of medical testimony and records in a recommittal hearing to determine dangerousness (current version at…
green
Garrity v. Thomson (1979)
State v. Kupchun, 117 N.H. 412, 415 , 373 A.2d 1325, 1327 (1977); State v. Farrow, 116 N.H. 731 , 366 A.2d 1177 (1976).
green
In Re Ct (2010)
Compare In re Kathleen M., 126 N.H. at 385-87 , 493 A.2d 472 (holding mere conclusory statement that treating physician offers best evidence as to dangerousness insufficient to establish necessity where other sources of information were potentially available), with State v. Kupchun, 117 N.H. 412, 415-16 , 373 A.2d 1325 (1977) (finding that without disclosure of privileged records as best information available bearing on defendant's dangerousness and mental condition, the Sta…
finding that without disclosure of privileged records as best information available bearing on defendant's dangerousness and mental condition, the State would have been "virtually deprived" of evidence to present to trial court in recommitment hearing
green
State v. Thresher (1982)
Additionally, the trial court can allow the admission of privileged information if the admission is “essential and reasonably necessary to permit counsel adequately to cross-examine for the purpose of showing unreliability or bias.” State v. Farrow, 116 N.H. 731, 733 , 366 A.2d 1177, 1179 (1976); see State v. Kupchun, 117 N.H. 412, 415 , 373 A.2d 1325, 1327 (1977); cf. State v. LaClair, 121 N.H. 743, 745-46 , 433 A.2d 1326, 1329 (1981).
green
In re Search Warrant for Medical Records of C.T. (2010)
Compare In re Kathleen M., 126 N.H. at 385-87 (holding mere conclusory statement that treating physician offers best evidence as to dangerousness insufficient to establish necessity where other sources of information were potentially available), with State v. Kupchun, 117 N.H. 412, 415-16 (1977) (finding that without disclosure of privileged records as best information available bearing on defendant’s dangerousness and mental condition, the State would have been “virtually d…
finding that without disclosure of privileged records as best information available bearing on defendant’s dangerousness and mental condition, the State would have been “virtually deprived” of evidence to present to trial court in recommitment hearing